At Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:29:43 -0500,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:38:47AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:22:22 -0500,
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek agreed. I am planning to bump the requirement up from
> > > 2.2.whatever to 2.4.0
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:38:47AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:22:22 -0500,
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Steve Langasek agreed. I am planning to bump the requirement up from
> > 2.2.whatever to 2.4.0 for i486 and powerpc; i486 in order to enable
> > floating stacks, and
At Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:22:22 -0500,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Steve Langasek agreed. I am planning to bump the requirement up from
> 2.2.whatever to 2.4.0 for i486 and powerpc; i486 in order to enable
> floating stacks, and powerpc because we've been getting bug reports
> that indicate that stati
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 08:08:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:17:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > It's only less effort "all around" because you wouldn't have to do any
> > of it. Don't you think that someone would have fixed this
> > well-documented limit
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:17:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> It's only less effort "all around" because you wouldn't have to do any
> of it. Don't you think that someone would have fixed this
> well-documented limitation in the last eight or so years if there was a
> practical fix? There
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:03:34AM +, David Given wrote:
> On Saturday 19 November 2005 05:10, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> [...]
> > We could ship a fourth variant of fifth variant of glibc for i686 using
> > LinuxThreads. I am not particularly motivated to do this considering
> > how rarely an
On Saturday 19 November 2005 05:10, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
[...]
> We could ship a fourth variant of fifth variant of glibc for i686 using
> LinuxThreads. I am not particularly motivated to do this considering
> how rarely anyone encounters this problem, and the corresponding cost
> in archive s
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:59:22AM +, David Given wrote:
> The reason: because 2.4 kernels don't support thread local storage,
That's not, in fact, true. LinuxThreads uses thread local storage when
configured for i686. The only i686-configured C libraries we ship for
x86 at this point in ti
Package: glibc
Version: 2.3.5-8
Severity: important
When using 2.4 kernels, the linuxthreads library makes an incorrect assumption
about stack usage that causes applications to crash if they use user stacks.
This does not occur on 2.6 kernels (because they use a different threading
library). I
9 matches
Mail list logo
