Re: Bug#175526: Bug #175526

2003-01-25 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:28:31PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > I don't know if it's significant, but upstream announced .18 today with > the following changelog: > > Changes from binutils 2.13.90.0.16: > > ... > 5.

Re: Bug#175526: Bug #175526

2003-01-24 Thread Jeff Bailey
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:23:01PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > At least I tested with binutils 2.13.90.0.16-1. > > But, I don't know the version number of the buildd environment. > seems to be the version used during the build as well. Haven't > tested this version but the problems I menti

Re: Bug #175526

2003-01-24 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 11:34:34AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > which binutils are used? Some older versions had bugs that were > > only triggered by gcc-3.2 > > At least I tested with binutils 2.13.90.0.16-1. > But, I don't know the version number of the buildd environment. seems to be the

Re: Bug#175526: Bug #175526

2003-01-23 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:35:07 +0100, > > GOTO Masanori writes: > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > > I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up - > > > > Bug #175526 against glibc is m68

Re: Bug #175526

2003-01-23 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:04:07 +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:43:55AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > > I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to brin

Re: Bug #175526

2003-01-22 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:43:55AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up - > > > Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific. > >

Re: Bug #175526

2003-01-21 Thread Matthias Klose
GOTO Masanori writes: > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up - > > > Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific. > > > > interesting. I am running gl

Re: Bug #175526

2003-01-21 Thread GOTO Masanori
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up - > > Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific. > > interesting. I am running glibc-2.3 and gcc-3.2 without much problems >

Re: Bug #175526

2003-01-21 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up - > Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific. interesting. I am running glibc-2.3 and gcc-3.2 without much problems here, will look if I can se

Bug #175526

2003-01-19 Thread Jeff Bailey
I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up - Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific. None of the current Debian Glibc folks are strongly versed in m68k. Is there a porter available to take a look at it? Tks, Jeff Bailey