On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:11:16AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 November 2014 23:43:29 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 06:54:26PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 11 November 2014 00:17:59 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:06:30AM +0100, Ond
On Tuesday 11 November 2014 23:43:29 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 06:54:26PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 November 2014 00:17:59 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:06:30AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > > (gdb) print JSC::MacroAssemblerX86Common::s_s
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 06:54:26PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 November 2014 00:17:59 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:06:30AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > (gdb) print JSC::MacroAssemblerX86Common::s_sseCheckState
> > > $1 = JSC::MacroAssemblerX86Common::HasSSE3
>
On Tuesday 11 November 2014 00:17:59 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:06:30AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > (gdb) print JSC::MacroAssemblerX86Common::s_sseCheckState
> > $1 = JSC::MacroAssemblerX86Common::HasSSE3
>
> Aha! At least now it's clear what part is doing wrong.
>
> Can you
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:06:30AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> (gdb) print JSC::MacroAssemblerX86Common::s_sseCheckState
> $1 = JSC::MacroAssemblerX86Common::HasSSE3
Aha! At least now it's clear what part is doing wrong.
Can you compile and run the following code, and give its output?
#include
On Monday 10 November 2014 23:18:14 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:25:50PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > On Monday 10 November 2014 06:03:04 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 08:30:58AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > Okay, so despite all the changes in the related
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:25:50PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Monday 10 November 2014 06:03:04 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 08:30:58AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > Okay, so despite all the changes in the related code, this was not
> > > fixed. I now need to know if this is
On Monday 10 November 2014 06:03:04 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 08:30:58AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Okay, so despite all the changes in the related code, this was not
> > fixed. I now need to know if this is a bug in cpu detection or in the
> > code deciding what to JIT featur
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 08:30:58AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Okay, so despite all the changes in the related code, this was not
> fixed. I now need to know if this is a bug in cpu detection or in the
> code deciding what to JIT features to enabled based on the cpu
> detection.
>
> In gdb, after
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:22:04PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday 08 November 2014 08:04:08 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:04:09AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > On Friday 07 November 2014 23:32:55 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:24:23PM +010
On Saturday 08 November 2014 08:04:08 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:04:09AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > On Friday 07 November 2014 23:32:55 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:24:23PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > > Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal ins
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:04:09AM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 23:32:55 Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:24:23PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
> > > [Switching to Thread 0xab7feb70 (LWP 7670)]
> > > 0
On Friday 07 November 2014 23:32:55 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:24:23PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
> > [Switching to Thread 0xab7feb70 (LWP 7670)]
> > 0xad42fbf2 in ?? ()
> > (gdb) disassemble
> > No function contains progr
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:24:23PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
> [Switching to Thread 0xab7feb70 (LWP 7670)]
> 0xad42fbf2 in ?? ()
> (gdb) disassemble
> No function contains program counter for selected frame.
> (gdb)
Try disassemble 0xad42fbf2
On Thursday 06 November 2014 23:49:16 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:04:22PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > Package: iceweasel
> > Version: 31.2.0esr-2~deb7u1
> > Severity: important
> >
> > Dear Maintainer,
> > after upgrading iceweasel:i386 24.8.1esr-1~deb7u1 to 31.2.0esr-2~deb7u
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:04:22PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> Package: iceweasel
> Version: 31.2.0esr-2~deb7u1
> Severity: important
>
> Dear Maintainer,
> after upgrading iceweasel:i386 24.8.1esr-1~deb7u1 to 31.2.0esr-2~deb7u1, it
> does not work anymore. It crashes immediately at startup with I
Package: iceweasel
Version: 31.2.0esr-2~deb7u1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
after upgrading iceweasel:i386 24.8.1esr-1~deb7u1 to 31.2.0esr-2~deb7u1, it
does not work anymore. It crashes immediately at startup with Illegal
instruction. In safe-mode, the application window appears but then i
17 matches
Mail list logo
