https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246514
--- Comment #7 from Yuri Pankov ---
Created attachment 214657
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=214657&action=edit
don't truncate argument list if --libxo was specified
(I'm on very limited internet connection at th
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246514
--- Comment #6 from Ed Maste ---
I think it's quite feasible to get the libxo case fixed for 11.4.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-bugs@free
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245870
Mark Johnston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |In Progress
Assignee|b..
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245870
--- Comment #8 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: markj
Date: Tue May 19 18:35:09 UTC 2020
New revision: 361263
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/361263
Log:
Define a module version for ac
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246514
--- Comment #5 from Kyle Evans ---
(In reply to Eirik Oeverby from comment #4)
I'd be willing to take any heat for committing a patch to fix just the --libxo
case.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246514
--- Comment #4 from Eirik Oeverby ---
(In reply to Yuri Pankov from comment #3)
Even if _only_ the --libxo case is fixed?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246514
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Pankov ---
(In reply to Eirik Oeverby from comment #2)
The code change here is easy and obvious, getting it integrated however isn't,
as Conrad mentioned.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assign
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246514
--- Comment #2 from Eirik Oeverby ---
If nobody is working (or plans to work) on this, I'll ask one of our people to
have a crack at it. I guess it won't make it to 11.4 anyway..
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assigne
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240762
--- Comment #10 from Ed Maste ---
(In reply to Dan Langille from comment #9)
Indeed - I'm trying to figure out if the original issue here is fixed for 12.2
and there's something else that needs investigation.
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240762
--- Comment #9 from Dan Langille ---
The reason I am testing stable is to ensure this issue does not persist for us
on 12.2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240762
--- Comment #8 from Ed Maste ---
(In reply to Gordon Bergling from comment #5)
To confirm that I understand correctly, you believe the original issue is fixed
in -CURRENT and in stable/12, so that 12.2 will be fixed?
And dvl's issue is per
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246561
--- Comment #4 from John Baldwin ---
GDB doesn't use the special field for MIPS (it ignores it). GDB also uses the
structure embedded in the rtld itself, it does not call dlinfo(). GDB does
seem to expect l_addr + offset of ".dynamic" in
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246561
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Belousov ---
(In reply to Alex S from comment #2)
Aren't the gdb binaries expect it (adopted to it) ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246561
--- Comment #2 from Alex S ---
(In reply to Konstantin Belousov from comment #1)
It's not clear if there exists any code at all which expects mapbase in l_addr.
Would you at least consider renaming l_addr to something else then? That way
e
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246561
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Belousov ---
I do not think we can break link_map ABI by changing the meaning of l_addr.
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24918
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239748
--- Comment #2 from Gordon Bergling ---
(In reply to Benedict Reuschling from comment #1)
Done, https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24916.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246557
Mark Johnston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |Closed
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221331
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@freebsd.org
Res
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231313
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246557
Greg Veldman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||free...@gregv.net
--- Comment #1 fr
[Consulter le message en ligne]
(http://tsapps.omniware.fr/c6.php?ec=2&l=jIqDpoGoe2dn&i=ZGRolGGUZWtr&t=ZA&e=maabyZLWlWSVpcylcMiknMeW2JVh0qWb&u=m6iq1GqSYK6qp5OhndCbrsOmyl+Z1WKiyduoo2aiyNmmZmaWYJNkZZuk0p4&v=8)
OmniWare, Solution de télétravail
Dans le contexte actuel, promouvoir le télétravail ré
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238551
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |In Progress
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238551
--- Comment #1 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: bcr
Date: Tue May 19 12:16:44 UTC 2020
New revision: 361250
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/361250
Log:
The -F flag of swapon(8) require
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239548
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|Open|Closed
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239748
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@freebsd.org
--- Comment
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243294
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243294
--- Comment #1 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: bcr
Date: Tue May 19 11:05:28 UTC 2020
New revision: 361249
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/361249
Log:
Fix a typo: argments -> argument
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233402
--- Comment #1 from fehmi noyan isi ---
Is being able to use -N without -r the desired behaviour for diff(1)? From
diff(1) man page, I understand that FreeBSD diff(1) requires the second file to
be present in the directory where a recursive
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240556
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |Closed
Resolution|--
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240556
--- Comment #1 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: bcr
Date: Tue May 19 09:17:21 UTC 2020
New revision: 361248
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/361248
Log:
Update SYNOPSIS section to be co
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237694
Benedict Reuschling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@freebsd.org
31 matches
Mail list logo