On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:05:05 -0300, Raoni Fassina Firmino wrote:
> Tested on powerpc64 and powerpc64le, with a glibc build and running the
> affected glibc's testcase[2], inspected that glibc's backtrace() now gives
> the correct result and gdb backtrace also keeps working as before.
>
> I believe
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 05:41:35PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Are you planning to update glibc to cope with this as well? Any idea
> about musl? If so, including version numbers would be good (not that
> it's really a problem to carry this patch around).
For glibc from the beginning I planne
Nicholas Piggin writes:
> Excerpts from Raoni Fassina Firmino's message of February 2, 2021 6:05 am:
>> Tested on powerpc64 and powerpc64le, with a glibc build and running the
>> affected glibc's testcase[2], inspected that glibc's backtrace() now gives
>> the correct result and gdb backtrace also
Excerpts from Raoni Fassina Firmino's message of February 2, 2021 6:05 am:
> Tested on powerpc64 and powerpc64le, with a glibc build and running the
> affected glibc's testcase[2], inspected that glibc's backtrace() now gives
> the correct result and gdb backtrace also keeps working as before.
>
>
