On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > Note that a bash binary compiled with PIE works fine for normal usage
> > with a current Linux kernel. Apparently it was causing troubles with
> > older Linux kernels, see
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1518483
> >
> > But with
I can down the distribution, e.g.
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-4.4.18.tar.gz, unpack it, goto base
directory and run configure.
Thought I had reported this earlier, but guess not!
If after a successful build, I run "make distclean" - "./configure &&
make" no longer works.
e.g.:
root@x0
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 01:03:05PM +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
> If after a successful build, I run "make distclean" - "./configure && make"
> no longer works.
> configure: WARNING: bison not available; needed to process parse.y
> + /usr/bin/make > .buildaix/make.out
> yacc: not found
You need to
Op 14-02-18 om 14:29 schreef Greg Wooledge:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 01:03:05PM +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
>> If after a successful build, I run "make distclean" - "./configure && make"
>> no longer works.
>
>> configure: WARNING: bison not available; needed to process parse.y
>> + /usr/bin/make
On 2/14/18 3:38 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> One thing that I saw in that document is "An interesting fact is that if
> you produce a position independent executable, the starting address
> instead changes to 0x0".
>
> Isn't it possible that sbrk() returns that pointer to you and you treat
> it a
On 2/14/18 7:03 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I can down the distribution, e.g.
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-4.4.18.tar.gz, unpack it, goto base
> directory and run configure.
>
> Thought I had reported this earlier, but guess not!
>
> If after a successful build, I run "make distclean" - "./con
I'll start all over again - using the following structure:
cd dist; wget distro..tar.gz
cd ../src; gzip -dc ../dist/distro.tar.gz | tar xf -
mkdir ../distro; cd ../distro
../src/distro/configure --arguments; make; make distclean
../src/distro/configure --arguments; make
As I have not been bu
On 2/7/18 5:09 PM, Nick Patavalis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:56 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 2/6/18 3:52 PM, Nick Patavalis wrote:
>>>
>>> In any case, splitting it like:
>>>
>>> foo | --bar | =" | baz" aa bb
>>>
>>> (the last part a single word) does not look reasonable to me (even if
>>