On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Next steps:
>> (1) Wait for testsuite results to finish completely. Verify nothing
>> has regressed.
No regressions.
>> (2) Remove changes to gcc package debian/rules2 and re-run validation.
Some regressions caused by enabling cloog/ppl,
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I can successfully run apt-get with the new libstdc++6 that I just built.
>
> The testsuite result is cleaner:
> ~~~
> FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic_flag/clear/1.c execution test
> FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic_flag/test_and_set/explicit.c execution test
>
>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:17:03AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
> >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
> >> wrote:
> While I set out the glibc types exactly as before (binary compatible),
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
>> wrote:
While I set out the glibc types exactly as before (binary compatible),
the alignment restrictions were changed subtly.
>>> Excellent debuggi
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
> wrote:
>>> While I set out the glibc types exactly as before (binary compatible),
>>> the alignment restrictions were changed subtly.
>> Excellent debugging!
>
> I have adjusted the glibc lock structure alignments to
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
wrote:
>> While I set out the glibc types exactly as before (binary compatible),
>> the alignment restrictions were changed subtly.
>
> Excellent debugging!
I have adjusted the glibc lock structure alignments to try and match
more accurately the
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell
> wrote:
> > This happens because the original locale object was created at address
> > 0xbff01c20. However, when apt-get calls "std::basic_ios > std::char_traits >::init" it passes in the address 0xbff01c18.
> > So we went from a constructor u
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
> This happens because the original locale object was created at address
> 0xbff01c20. However, when apt-get calls "std::basic_ios std::char_traits >::init" it passes in the address 0xbff01c18.
> So we went from a constructor using this as 0x
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM, John David Anglin
wrote:
>> > The problem appears to have gone away with head. I don't see it with
>> > hpux.
>> >
>>
>> Note that latest version of gcc 4.4 in Debian is built with
>> --disable-libstdcxx-pch, but the segfault is this present :(
>
> Personally, I
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:30:16AM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> > > The problem appears to have gone away with head. I don't see it with
> > > hpux.
> > >
> >
> > Note that latest version of gcc 4.4 in Debian is built with
> > --disable-libstdcxx-pch, but the segfault is this present :(
>
> > The problem appears to have gone away with head. I don't see it with
> > hpux.
> >
>
> Note that latest version of gcc 4.4 in Debian is built with
> --disable-libstdcxx-pch, but the segfault is this present :(
Personally, I don't believe the segfault is related to the FAILs
seen in the libs
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:55:12PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> > I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
> >
> > | 77
> > | __signbitl
> > | version status: incompatible
> > | GLIBCXX_3.4
> > | type: function
> > | status: a
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:00:59PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
> > >
> > > | 77
> > > | __signbitl
> > > | version status: incompatible
> > > | GLIBCXX_3.4
> > > |
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> > I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
> >
> > | 77
> > | __signbitl
> > | version status: incompatible
> > | GLIBCXX_3.4
> > | type: function
> > | status: added
>
> If __signbitl is the only failure in the abi_check,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
>
> | 77
> | __signbitl
> | version status: incompatible
> | GLIBCXX_3.4
> | type: function
> | status: added
If __signbitl is the only failure in the abi_check, then that's easy
to fix, th
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0600, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 20.11.2009 16:44, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno
>> wrote:
>>> Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5,
On 20.11.2009 16:44, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wro
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> frankly i do not know what
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:52:36PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno
> > wrote:
> > > Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
> > >> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli w
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
> >> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
frankly i do not know what to do next, besides trying to rebuild gcc-4.4
4.4.2-1 wit
> On 08.11.2009 21:38, John David Anglin wrote:
> >> test results for 4.4.2-1:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-10/msg01919.html
> >> for 4.4.2-2:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg00351.html
> >>
> >> there are some differences, which are not seen in Dave
> On 08.11.2009 21:38, John David Anglin wrote:
> >> test results for 4.4.2-1:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-10/msg01919.html
> >> for 4.4.2-2:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg00351.html
> >>
> >> there are some differences, which are not seen in Dave
On 08.11.2009 21:38, John David Anglin wrote:
test results for 4.4.2-1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-10/msg01919.html
for 4.4.2-2:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg00351.html
there are some differences, which are not seen in Dave's build:
http://gcc.gnu.
> test results for 4.4.2-1:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-10/msg01919.html
> for 4.4.2-2:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg00351.html
>
> there are some differences, which are not seen in Dave's build:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg000
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> >>
> >> frankly i do not know what to do next, besides trying to rebuild gcc-4.4
> >> 4.4.2-1 with latest eglibc to see if
26 matches
Mail list logo
