On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:05:11AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Grant, thank you for your work to date on this bug. (BTW, it would be
> helpful if you would follow up to bug #342545 on libgcc2, instead of bug
> #341675 which is filed against just one of the many packages affected by
> it).
Stev
Grant, thank you for your work to date on this bug. (BTW, it would be
helpful if you would follow up to bug #342545 on libgcc2, instead of bug
#341675 which is filed against just one of the many packages affected by
it).
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem from the bug log as though much progress is
b
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 06:56:34PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
...
> It would be nice if somebody fluent with hppa assembly can tell us if
>
> fldw -10(,sp),fr23
>
> is a valid instruction or not.
Aurelien,
gdb may not be decoding the instruction correctly.
Shouldn't the target of "word"
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 02:04:44AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Rather than debugging this by remote control, you might find it
> easier to simply run "uic" yourself. Obtain the sources for
> cppunit (e.g. by "apt-get source cppunit) then do:
>
> cd src/qttestrunner
> /usr/share/qt3/
Dear Grant,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 12:27:59AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> Can you provide more context around the offending insn?
> 10 lines of asm before and after the SIGILL instruction?
> And possibly a register dump just before the SIGILL is issued?
> It would be interesting to know what
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 06:56:34PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
...
> and now the problem is a SIGILL that
> occurs a few instructions later when calling __umoddi3 from
> libgcc_s.so.2.
...
> It would be nice if somebody fluent with hppa assembly can tell us if
>
> fldw -10(,sp),fr23
>
>
reassign 341675 libgcc2 4.0.2-5
thanks
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 06:56:34PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 02:41:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This is a bug that was believed fixed previously, but it is *not* bug
> > #326581; it's bug #333766, which was fixed in glibc
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 02:41:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This is a bug that was believed fixed previously, but it is *not* bug
> #326581; it's bug #333766, which was fixed in glibc 2.3.5-7. (And it really
> was fixed, otherwise kdelibs4c2 wouldn't be in testing right now for hppa.)
> But
8 matches
Mail list logo