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

Two further failures...



Okay.  The patch, and making sure I'm using gcc-2.95 seem to have
fixed the two math problems, but I now have these failures:

GCONV_PATH=/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/iconvdata LC_ALL=C LOCPATH=/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/localedata  /home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/elf/ld-linux.so.2 --library-path /home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/math:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/elf:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/dlfcn:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/nss:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/nis:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/rt:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/resolv:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/crypt:/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/linuxthreads /home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/localedata/tst_strfmon  > /home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/localedata/tst_strfmon.out
make[4]: *** [/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj/localedata/tst_strfmon.out] Error 139


make[4]: Target `tests' not remade because of errors.
make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/glibc-2.2.5/localedata'
make[3]: *** [localedata/tests] Error 2


make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/glibc-2.2.5/elf'
make[3]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/glibc-2.2.5'
make[2]: *** [check] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jbailey/cvstree/glibc-2.2.5/i386-linux/obj'

The first two I'm certain are related.  Is this bottom one also
related?

I'll hack at it a little bit, but I need to get off the 'puter soon.
Is a localdata bug in strfmon a show stopper, when we'll probably have
a new upload that's current CVS very soon?

Tks,
Jeff Bailey

-- 
I reincarnated for this?



Reply to: