On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:42:13PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> OK, but knowing that helps only a little. There is still no indication
> of what the problem with bash might be. Since I have no 64-bit linux
> or sparc systems, I need a place to start.
>
Chet - thanks for the reply.
Park this f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:25:17PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Given the involvement of ld-linux.so.2, I tried building and using a
>> statically linked bash (3.2), and sure enough it does NOT exhibit the
>> segfaults at all.
>>
>
> It seems I was a bit premature
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:25:17PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Given the involvement of ld-linux.so.2, I tried building and using a
> statically linked bash (3.2), and sure enough it does NOT exhibit the
> segfaults at all.
>
It seems I was a bit premature here. The static bash does inde
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: sparc64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='sparc64'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='unknown' -DLOCALEDIR='/pkg/bash/sha
