libncurses5 for sparc64 has been around for a long time. I don't use
anything other than menuconfig, so I can't speak for other ui interfaces.
> There also does not exist the necessary 64-bit versions of the
> graphical libraries needed to use the graphical kernel configurator.
> But one can overr
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 01:32:54AM -0400, Jim Crilly wrote:
> > >
> > > Make the login environment be sparc32 by default. Doesn't that
> > > solve the problem? And for die-hard 64-bit people like me they
> > > can undo this via some configuration mechanism.
> > >
> > > It is one option.
> >
>
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:27:22PM -0700, David S.Miller wrote:
> From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:21:57 -0400
>
> > But (and this but is for David), that means users can't simply do
> > "apt-get source foo; cd foo-1.1; dpkg
You're right. Didn't get down that far. As far as I'm concerned, the
default 64-bit is the right thing. But it's hard to convince long time
users that a machine that is 99% 32-bit userspace, should compile 64-bit
binaries by default, when 99% of the time, those same people are going to
want 32-bit.
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:29:01AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The lack of a 64 bit compiler able to compile to a 64bit sparc
> version 9b instruction set is really, really, really, really pissing
> me and hundreds if not thousands of other people off.
You're the first person I've heard comp
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:25:21AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 06:14:30PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Just because the binaries are built somewhere else does not defer the
> > fact that the bug is in the source. He's having a problem buil
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:30:11AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:17:16PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > But this is a bug in the kernel source, not in the sparc kernel package.
> > Why should it be assigned to the kernel-image-sparc package when it h
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:13:33AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> reassign 221621 kernel-image-sparc-2.4
> quit
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:48:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > reassign 221621 kernel-source-2.4.22
> > Bug#221621:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:04:52AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Actually, it works just like it is supposed to work. That may not be the
> > same as in the past, but it's the way it should be. Granted the surprise
> > is something the users will have to adjust to, but that doesn't mean
> > things
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:42:24AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:56:05PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > why is it annoying? it just works.
>
> It just works the opposite of the way I want it to work.
> It also confuses the hell out of users who just want to compile
> som
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:43:14PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Clint Adams writes:
> >> Package: gcc
> >> Version: 4:3.3.1-2
> >> File: /usr/bin/gcc
> >>
> >> Please make the sparc gcc wrapper optional for those of us who would
> >> prefer a symlin
How about I add a file you can touch, like /etc/disable_64_gcc, and then
gcc will revert to the previous behavior no matter what?
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
> | this overflow of stack in assembly:
> |
> | read_infos:
> | .LLFB46:
> | .loc 1 197 0
> | !#PROLOGUE# 0
> | save%sp, --2147483544, %sp
> |
> | Notice the double negative, produces by overflowing the stack pointer,
>
> I'm not very familiar with compilers internals but (I
This is a bug in the code. Too much allocation on the stack:
int read_infos (int socket_data, char **infos) {
int nb;
char datas[SSIZE_MAX];
/* SSIZE_MAX = 2147483647 */
That's 2 gigs of stack allocation...not likely to happen :) It produces
this overflow of stack in assembly:
read
> julie[gacc] make
> ==> Building gAcc for Linux/sparc...
> Making all in libgacc...
> make[1]: Entering directory `/home/thomas/devel/gacc/libgacc'
> gcc -c -g3 -I/usr/include -O2 -Wall -I. -I.. -DDEBUG_LEVEL=0 comms.c
> /tmp/ccieLhss.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/ccieLhss.s:6180: Error: reloc
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw writes:
> > i386 seems to die, sun4m also does have servere problems... Where does
> > this lead to? All these seem to arise from doing optimization which
> > hasn't been proved to (really) make things better... Eve
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 09:37:28AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ben, I think, this is the same as #202924, introduced by the
> sparc64-build patch. Is there a reason that -Y P,/usr/lib is replaced
> with -L/usr/lib ?
I can't remember why I had done that, but feel free to revert it.
--
Debian
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:42:38PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
> > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > reassign 199436 g77
> > Bug#199436: blas: build failure on sparc
> > Bug reassigned from package `blas' to `g77'.
>
> that's a log of infor
libg2c0 fixincludes gij-3.2
cpp-3.2 gnat-3.2
Architecture: source sparc all
Version: 1:3.2.3ds9-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian GCC maintainers
Changed-By: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
cpp-3.2- The GNU C preprocessor
cpp-3.2-doc - Documentation f
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which seems
> > to be the latest copy.
> >
> > My understanding is that GCC 3.2 now works on all architectur
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 07:44:30PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Has this bug been fixed yet? (I assume it has not)
>
> I am planning to upload kde 3.1 very soon (most likely this weekend)
> so I guess it will have to be with gcc 2.95 :(
The next gcc-3.2 upload will be fixed, yes.
--
Debian
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:51:06AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> [ok, this is a Debian self made problem, so don't read on ...]
>
> The cause is the patch we apply to build a compiler for
> sparc-linux, supporting -m64 as well. In the configury, the
> _GLIBCPP_HAVE_L detect the /lib64/libc.so.6 .
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:50:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
> >Now that glibc 2.3.1 is in sid, what are the plans
> > for the transition to gcc 3.2.1?
>
> we are waiting for an transition plan. My assumption was Jeff would
> propose a transition plan for a _coordinat
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:20:42AM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:41:18PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > 64bit itself is not broken on Debian. The part that we have trouble with
> > is very fine grained. Dpkg selects architecture based on gcc's target.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:12:09PM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:46:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Roy Bixler writes:
> > > I am running Sid and have recently been compiling many kernels in an
> > > effort to get the 'ncpfs' filesystem to work on the Ultrasparc. Usin
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 11:57:41PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > >
> > > well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the
> > > original
> > > sources of gcc 2.95.2..
> > >
on as from 2.95.2, but that's not the compiler.
--
.--===-=-==-=---=----=-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux--WatchGuard.com \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:56:22PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > This is definitely a source bug in i810_audio.c. In 2.5.x somewhere, the
> > remap_page_range() function changed its expected arguments. Seems this
> > driver
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:40:01PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > How about telling us the error? We use out 2.95.4 compiler to create out
> > own images for Debian kernels. So if you want a sane answer, instead of
> > some
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:17:53PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > You'd probably get a better response if you actually explain your
> > compile error.
>
> well, it is known that kernel source is a bit picky about comp
ually explain your
compile error.
--
.--===-=-==-=---=====--------=-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux--WatchGuard.com \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
it by the full PATH (adding "./" in front of
it tells it to look in the current directory).
Ben
--
.--=======-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux--WatchGuard.com \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
les?
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:17:15PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 04:53:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > This fails
> > >
> > > g++-3.0 -o bin/program o/object1.o ... -static
> > >
> > > because gcc-3.0 cannot find
-libgcc, then use -lgcc
- If not -static-libgcc or -shared-libgcc, and -shared, then use -lgcc_s
- If not -static-libgcc or -shared-libgcc, and -static, then use -lgcc
And that is exactly what it should be, and should work.
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=---
clude/bits/types.h
/usr/include/bits/xopen_lim.h
/usr/include/sys/procfs.h
/usr/include/sys/ptrace.h
/usr/include/sys/sysmacros.h
/usr/include/sys/ucontext.h
--
.--===-=-======-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux
o be a Debian related problem, so what do we want to do?
If I build you a chroot with an older libc6/libc6-dev, can you try a
build there?
--
.--===-=-==-=-------=----=-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux
ithout knowing?
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
problem...let me remove that package and put this bug on
binutils-multiarch. Try the build again Matthias.
--
.--=======-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
2.95, or 3.0? Either
way, you will have some issues to contend with concering libstdc++. Not
sure what they are, or how to get around them, but they will be there.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=====---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian
ur are putting into
LD_LIBRARAY_PATH to /etc/ld.so.conf.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
parc64) work
> around the problem?
I've no idea how you get your system to this state. Purge all the
gcc-3.0 stuff and install it all over from scratch.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=---=====----=-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:07:20PM +0100, David Starner wrote:
> From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 08:27:14PM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > > Package: gcc-3.0
> > > Version: 3.0.1-0pre010723
> > >
> > > Hi,
not inlining.
>
> I hope for quick reverting back.
Why not have the kernel Makefile pass "-flimit-inline=1" explicitly?
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
s used as a noun, but the same rules do not apply, atleast from what
I remember from the english textbooks.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=====-------==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
shop
> windows."
No, we aren't talking about nouns, we are talking about acronyms. The above
does not pertain to this use.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
n again, I never cared much for the language part of english class :)
Ben
--
---=======-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
rules.
The sparc64 target uses multilibs, but not for the main gcc-3.0 package.
--
-------===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
, which is an
alias to all of the port lists :)
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=====---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
>
This is known, and fixed for the next release.
--
---===-=-==-=====---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
c++.la file until
g++-3.0 is the default compiler.
Ben
--
---===-=-======-=====---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
ld I just scrap it and hold off for this next upload with
the eh changes?
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---=----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
t changes calling it manually.
--
---===-=-==-=---=--------=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
the base of the package name in the
> descripotion, a no-no.
>
> Shared libgcc.
>
> For an extended, aka "long" description, that sucks rocks (through
> pipettes).
Hey, it's a new set of packages. Give it a chance :)
Fixing in CVS...
--
---===-=-===
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:14:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > Which version of dpkg-dev do you have installed?
>
> $ dpkg -l dpkg-dev
> Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
> |
> Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config
1 warnings about the control file(s)
> [...]
Which version of dpkg-dev do you have installed?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
is fixed with glibc 2.2.3-1
--
---===-=-==-=---=====----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
l use gcc-2.95. You need to set CC=gcc-3.0 to actually use the new
compiler. So the warning is pretty accurate.
However, after the next upgrade, it wont give a warning any longer.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=-------=----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that f
all, but surely dselect
> shouldn't *automatically* upgrade if it is this dangerous?!
Which architecture?
--
---===-=-==-=---======-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
and enabling the gcc-weaksym patch for Alpha for this
> upload, but am not at a machine where I can get to the CVS repository
> right now. Can someone do the same in CVS?
FYI, the sparc build went fine with the fsirl patch.
--
---===-=-==-=-------=--
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > > >Is there any mips or arm machine I could log into which has 2.95.4
> > &g
rypted password or an SSH public key. Dunno about mips.
I just tested on my netwinder, and it does not exhibit the same problem.
I can test on mips later tonight.
--
---===-=-==-=---=----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage...
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:37:09AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:31:18PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++
> >
> > IMO, you should us
ing the
bug.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 08:06:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 05:38:17PM -0600, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > > Hi debian-gcc,
> > >
> > > FYI...
> > >
> > > I built newer gcc-3.0 pack
?
Wont it break things on hppa? Should we resolve this now?
--
---===-=-======-=====---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
g build/works fine. Some patches will need to be regen'd to get rid
> of the offsets but that should be easy.
Yeah, caught that one. I'm working from a 04-16 snapshot now. I may
upload a new set based on this within a day or two.
Ben
--
---===-=-======-=====-
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:45:05PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > For the first time I was able to com
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
> > 2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
>
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:27:26PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:28:17PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 08:05:08PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > stage1/collect2 -Y P,/usr/lib -dynamic-linker /lib/ld.so.1 -o gencheck
>
an find where it
adds the crtend etc.. and why it doesn't have -lc in there aswell (maybe
compare to the other archs like sparc or i386).
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
.text+0x138): undefined reference to `exit'
Looks like you are mixing some libc things here. Are you sure you have a
pure 2.0.6 install with no glibc 2.2.x things laying around?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make: *** [etags] Error 1
>
>
> Do I need to wait for libdb2.so (and, presumably, lots of other
> libraries) to be rebuilt with the new gcc?
Yes, libdb2, needs to be rebuilt, and is in fact in incoming right now.
--
---===-=-
ugs
> from autobuilders...).
I got the same build failure on sparc.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
f the tool
chain. When libnspr4 builds, it does so with this line:
/usr/bin/ld -shared -soname libplds4.so -o libplds4.so ./plarena.o ./plhash.o
./plvrsion.o -ldl
It needs to use gcc to link, or atleast add -lc to the link line.
--
---===-=-==-=---=------
*shrug*, try this unrelated fix" :)
>
Most likely this is a gcc bug, similar to the one we have been
experiencing with atexit. Good thing is, it's fixed with gcc 2.95.3-9 in
unstable.
--
---===-=-==-=====---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on t
ou drop it in at the last minute is probably
> worthwhile...
We may have to put it into unstable just so hppa and others can have a
supported compiler. It shouldn't cause any catastrophes since it wont be
used unless someone sets CC=gcc-3.0.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
you are on debian-gcc, but this has turned out to be a gcc
problem.
--
---=======-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
We need this in the next gcc-2.95 ASAP, please. This only affects i386.
All other archs appear to work fine.
- Forwarded message from "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 26 15:06:50 2001
From: "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTEC
10 days, normally. A higher priority
is just to help rush serious bug fixes (security and the like).
--
---===-=-==-=---=====--------=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:30:06PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > I've added the patch from Franz to the 2.95 CVS. This is required for
> > glibc to be buildable again.
> >
> > Matthias, can you do
ibc upload along with
it. Anything else that needs to go into this release?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
85 matches
Mail list logo
