| 1 |
On May 28, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Bryan Østergaard wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Davide Cittaro wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Hi all, I've found that glibc 2.5+ cannot be compiled on my alpha, as |
| 5 |
>> reported on gentoo bugzilla by another person. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179353 |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I have a couple of questions, then: |
| 10 |
>> 1- it is safe to use '-nptlonly' flag? |
| 11 |
> Not really. In the past we've found Linuxthreads to be unstable and |
| 12 |
> nptlonly is much preferred for that reason (we had programs randomly |
| 13 |
> crashing with Linuxthreads and no problems with NPTL). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
After 1 hour of building I've discovered that glibc doesn't compile |
| 17 |
even without nptlonly flag |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> 2- when the patched glibc will be available in portage (comment 2 of |
| 20 |
>> that bug has been posted one week ago)? |
| 21 |
> As soon as glibc upstream fixes the problem. Meanwhile you have two |
| 22 |
> different options. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 1. Upgrade to binutils >=2.17.50.0.15 and risk possible unknown bugs |
| 25 |
> from doing so. |
| 26 |
> 2. Ignoring glibc-2.5 updates until upstream fixes the issue. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> My recommendation would be to wait and not try to work around the |
| 29 |
> issue |
| 30 |
> yourself. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Unfortunately I have strict times and this general system update has |
| 33 |
been scheduled for this week. Since glibc-2.5-r2 is marked stable on |
| 34 |
alpha I thought I wouldn't run into such issues... :-( |
| 35 |
If I upgrade binutils can I use both nptl* flags? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
d |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
/* |
| 40 |
Davide Cittaro |
| 41 |
HPC and Bioinformatics Systems @ Informatics Core |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
IFOM - Istituto FIRC di Oncologia Molecolare |
| 44 |
via adamello, 16 |
| 45 |
20139 Milano |
| 46 |
Italy |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
tel.: +39(02)574303007 |
| 49 |
e-mail: davide.cittaro@×××××××××××××××.it |
| 50 |
*/ |
Archives