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

ARM updates



Hi,

I've updated gcc - which I uploaded to Incoming.  It's basically the
Aug. 18th patch, but it was built on top of our glibc, so the "fixed"
includes in /usr/lib/gcc-lib/include should hopefully make more sense.

It's also at:

  ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/debian/pkgs/gcc-corel/latest/

I've also fixed binutils so it correctly handles versioned symbols.  I
also uploaded that, and you can get it at:

  ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/debian/pkgs/binutils-corel/latest/

A few weeks ago, I uploaded a patched glibc based on Corel's source.
Unfortunately it got rejected because the upload included a 'all'
architecture file that had an older version that what was currently
there.  I didn't redo the upload because I was planning on releasing a
glibc based on version 2.0.96 - but I'm having problems with that.

Anyways, if you want the latest glibc that works - get it from here:

  ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/debian/pkgs/glibc-corel/latest/

I have also uploaded the source for 2.0.96 to my server - at least, as
far as I've gotten.  It almost works - but not quite.  The ld.so it
builds seems to segfault when running some files (but not others).  I
have the problems even when I use the old glibc, binutils and no
versioning - so it doesn't look like a bug I've introduced.

If anybody wants to take a crack at fixing it, please be my guest -
I'm probably not going to have time to attack it in the next few days.

  ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/debian/netwinder/prelim/glibc-broken/

I've also made a package of egcs (with Philip Blundell's patches).  I
haven't released it yet, because I haven't tested it much.

  ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/debian/netwinder/prelim/egcs/

I've also uploaded ltrace (which now includes Pat Beirne's patches).
It's like strace, but better (apparently).

As you can see - I've been very busy over the last few weeks on this
stuff.  If only glibc would start working, then we'd be away to the
races.  :-)

Cheers,

 - Jim


Reply to: