Bug#434634: marked as done (gcc-4.2: [alpha] Regression in glibc testsuite)
Your message dated Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:18:05 +0200
with message-id <20070728081805.GA32045@volta.aurel32.net>
and subject line gcc-4.2: [alpha] Regression in glibc testsuite
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gcc-4.2
Version: 4.2.1-1
Severity: important
Trying to build glibc 2.6 on alpha leads to a regression in
the test dlfcn/tst-dlinfo. This test segfaults when used with a glibc
built with gcc-4.2 whereas the same binaries works when used with a
glibc built with gcc-4.1.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (990, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-1-amd64
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to fr_FR.UTF-8)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:35:53PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Package: gcc-4.2
> Version: 4.2.1-1
> Severity: important
>
> Trying to build glibc 2.6 on alpha leads to a regression in
> the test dlfcn/tst-dlinfo. This test segfaults when used with a glibc
> built with gcc-4.2 whereas the same binaries works when used with a
> glibc built with gcc-4.1.
>
The bug was actually on the glibc side, and has been fixed by the same
patch as the ppc64 one.
Closing the bug.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
--- End Message ---
Reply to: