> > * or a bug in ld.so -- inability to handle correctly specified multiple
GOTs
> > for more than 16k global symbols
Thiemo wrote:
>
> That (it shouldn't segfault), and/or potentially also a bug in ld which
> leads to failure for large MultiGOT binaries.
Rocking. It looks like most people inv
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> It's a lot of work to fix and no one has done it. That's not the same
> thing at all.
That's nice, but there's still a real problem unrelated to that.
An example of a relatively healthy bug which is "a lot of work to fix and no
one has done it" is http://gcc.gnu.org/b
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 03:18:23PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> What I keep hearing is that no one has reported the bug(s), and nobody except
> Thiemo Seufer has even described it/them adequately. This is a bug or bugs
> which is not documented in the documentation or bug databases for glibc
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 05:16:28AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I begin to get the picture.
>
> Apparently the MIPS ABI is just plain broken. It contains some sort of
> impassable hard limit on relocation table size, breaking random packages at
> random times with no possible fix. Nobody c
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >Actually, there is one criterion missing: Does this bug really hurt us
> >bad (enough)? And my current answer to this is no, but of course, you
> >might want to persuade me. :)
> ...
>
> >So, I think we can say that this bug is even forwarded to up
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051007 04:42]:
> > Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > If
> > > you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> > > should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> > > team first.
> > That's not
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > If
> > you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> > should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> > team first.
> That's not at all what I think.
>
> I think that if there are known binutils bugs for
Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, there is one criterion missing: Does this bug really hurt us
bad (enough)? And my current answer to this is no, but of course, you
might want to persuade me. :)
...
So, I think we can say that this bug is even forwarded to upstream, as
mips Inc is aware of it and
Hi,
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051007 04:42]:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > If
> > you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> > should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> > team first.
> That's not at all what I think.
>
> I think that
Matthias Klose wrote:
> If
> you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> team first.
That's not at all what I think.
I think that if there are known binutils bugs for your architecture, which
supposedly pr
10 matches
Mail list logo
