1 |
Please don't file a duplicate bug about this problem as we're well aware |
2 |
of the existing bug. The big problem is that we don't seem to be able to |
3 |
reproduce the bug as everything seems fine in our testing using |
4 |
glibc-2.3.5*. |
5 |
|
6 |
At least 3 Gentoo developers (myself included) have tried to reproduce |
7 |
it without any luck which makes it quite hard to fix. |
8 |
|
9 |
So what I'd like is a bit more information about the machines this |
10 |
problem happens on. Model of the box, glibc version, kernel version and |
11 |
patchset and output from emerge --info. |
12 |
|
13 |
Please add all this info to bug 100259 or send it to this list or me |
14 |
directly at kloeri@g.o and I'll see if I can find some pattern |
15 |
to this. Hopefully this will give me some much needed clue about this |
16 |
problem. |
17 |
|
18 |
Regards, |
19 |
Bryan Østergaard |
20 |
|
21 |
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:39:53PM -0800, Jeff Donsbach wrote: |
22 |
> Thanks, Marc, |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I guess it's a good thing I didn't build with |
25 |
> USE="-nptlonly" then, huh? ;-) |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Should I file a duplicate bug in bugzilla (if it would |
28 |
> help)? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> So, is there some kind of catch 22 going on here? |
31 |
> Weren't there some reports of problems with |
32 |
> linuxthreads in glibc on Alpha? |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Jeff D |
35 |
> |
36 |
> --- Marc Giger <gigerstyle@×××.ch> wrote: |
37 |
> |
38 |
> > Hi, |
39 |
> > |
40 |
> > I reported the same problem to bugzilla... |
41 |
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100259#c36 |
42 |
> > (Perhaps it finds more attention here...) |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > It seems it has to do with the current state of ntpl |
45 |
> > on |
46 |
> > alphas. |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > If you set LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1 and therefore |
49 |
> > force |
50 |
> > to use linuxthreads, emerge works again. |
51 |
> > But I don't know if it really is nptl's fault. I can |
52 |
> > manually |
53 |
> > compile everything with the same parameters as |
54 |
> > portage does. So a portage (sandbox?) fault is also |
55 |
> > possible. |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > Marc |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> > On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:45:57 -0800 (PST) |
61 |
> > Jeff Donsbach <jeff_donsbach@×××××.com> wrote: |
62 |
> > |
63 |
> > > |
64 |
> > > Good point, Nils. Perhaps "5" is the configure.log |
65 |
> > I |
66 |
> > > included? I don't know.I'll try that tonight (the |
67 |
> > > Miata is at home). |
68 |
> > > |
69 |
> > > Jeff D |
70 |
> > > |
71 |
> > > --- "Nils o. Janus" <NoJ@××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
72 |
> > > |
73 |
> > > > Hi Jeff, |
74 |
> > > > |
75 |
> > > > > configure:1892: checking whether the C |
76 |
> > compiler |
77 |
> > > > > (/usr/bin/gcc -mieee -mcpu=ev56 -pipe -O2 ) |
78 |
> > works |
79 |
> > > > > configure:1908: /usr/bin/gcc -o conftest |
80 |
> > -mieee |
81 |
> > > > > -mcpu=ev56 -pipe -O2 conftest.c 1>&5 |
82 |
> > > > ^^^^ |
83 |
> > > > what perplexes me is that stdout is redirecting |
84 |
> > to |
85 |
> > > > the filedescriptor 5 |
86 |
> > > > which is not a standardized one. |
87 |
> > > > Does that filedescriptor ( /dev/fd/5 ) exist? |
88 |
> > > > This may be the reason why compiling without |
89 |
> > > > redirecting the output, like |
90 |
> > > > you already tried, works fine. |
91 |
> > > > |
92 |
> > > > Try passing the 1>&5 to the call of gcc too and |
93 |
> > > > check wether it segfaults |
94 |
> > > > again. |
95 |
> > > > |
96 |
> > > > On a DS20e, gcc just throws a "Bad file |
97 |
> > descriptor" |
98 |
> > > > error without |
99 |
> > > > segfaulting. |
100 |
> > > > |
101 |
> > > > HTH, |
102 |
> > > > |
103 |
> > > > greetings |
104 |
> > > > Nils |
105 |
> > > > -- |
106 |
> > > > gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |
107 |
> > > > |
108 |
> > > > |
109 |
> > > |
110 |
> > > |
111 |
> > > |
112 |
> > > |
113 |
> > > __________________________________________ |
114 |
> > > Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. |
115 |
> > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. |
116 |
> > > dsl.yahoo.com |
117 |
> > > |
118 |
> > > -- |
119 |
> > > gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |
120 |
> > > |
121 |
> > |
122 |
> > -- |
123 |
> > gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |
124 |
> > |
125 |
> > |
126 |
> |
127 |
> |
128 |
> __________________________________________________ |
129 |
> Do You Yahoo!? |
130 |
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around |
131 |
> http://mail.yahoo.com |
132 |
> -- |
133 |
> gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |
134 |
> |
135 |
> |
136 |
-- |
137 |
gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |