[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: glibc

From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: Re: glibc
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:07:34 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/

On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 06:43:32PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    For glibc-2_3-branch I had to add '#include <stdint.h>' to
>    libio/fmemopen.c.  (You have fixed that in HEAD, but not in
>    glibc-2_3-branch; I sent you an email about that some days ago but
>    didn't get an answer, yet.)
> Could you file this in bugzilla for glibc?

Done: <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=765>
Is it correct that this was automatically assigned to
At least, I'm not aware of having changed anything.

>    [...] configuring glibc.
> [...] isn't needed.  Nor is --with-headers

It _is_.  For me.

> On the other hand, you must use
> --without-tls, or you will get a totally broken system that is
> incapable of working at all.

That one or replacing '-Os' with '-O2' finally made a fresh build
succeed (or both of them).
(I did not yet run the test suite, though, but the included
'bin/getent' etc. works.)

Maybe 'gcc -Os' produces invalid code that makes GNU Mach crash?
I'll have a look at that later.

I needed the attached patches to make it compile.  They were (partly)
discussed on the relevant mailing lists, but didn't get applied.
Shall I open bugzilla requests for them?
What's the policy for such tiny changes?
(... and why aren't they noticed by other people? -- They make the build
fail completely for me.  Perhaps everyone uses Debian's glibc...  Or
everyone is too lazy to report those tiny changes...  Or...)


Attachment: elf_dl-load.c.patch
Description: Text document

Attachment: malloc_arena.c.patch
Description: Text document

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]