--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-31 19:25
---
yes. you have successfully located the issue! reverting the clone.S.diff for
x86_64 in glibc fixed it.
can you make sure and help that it will be fixed in glibc before 2.6.1 release?
you seem to be much more
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-27 19:27
---
anything missing?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4781
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-24 22:00
---
due to size limit the files are just going to
http://archlinux.org/~andyrtr/wanted_files.tar.bz2
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4781
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-24 21:45
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] glibc]$ gcc -print-file-name=libgcc.a
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.2.1/libgcc.a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] glibc-build]$ gcc -v -shared -static-libgcc -Wl,-O1
-Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-dynamic-linker
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-21 20:39
---
ok, i got it located. it's this commit:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2006-11/msg00100.html
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4781
--- You are receiving this mail be
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-21 16:30
---
ok, i could track down the issue due to the commits from 22th Nov. 2006.
cvs co from 21st worked well and from 22nd has the memory issues.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4781
--- You
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-21 14:14
---
i know the way you want to show me. is there an easy way to just
download/checkout let's say the first 100 commited patches? (compile time isn't
an issue, system is really fast but has slow internet
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-21 13:54
---
hm. too much commits that i could test out each one of them.
i checked again and used this time Sun's Java and don't have any problems. So
can this also be a bug in GNUjava from gcc-gcj that is intro
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-18 10:45
---
yes, the only difference in the glibc pkg is the binutils pkg it is built
against. nothing else.
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/binutils/ChangeLog.diff?r1=1.&r2=1.1108&cvsroot=src&
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-12 21:20
---
both failed here: replacing libc.so.6 breaks the system completly. no command
will work anymore.
i could revert the patch cleaning out some parts. but now binutils won't build
anymore claiming problems
--- Additional Comments From andyradke at web dot de 2007-07-12 07:33
---
with last working version .06: http://pastebin.archlinux.org/9374
broken recent .17: http://pastebin.archlinux.org/9375
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4781
--- You are receiving this
Product: binutils
Version: 2.18 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: andyradke at web dot de
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
12 matches
Mail list logo
