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

Bug#159411: Cannot reproduce



On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:59:48AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:25:25 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:17:38PM +0100, Johan Walles wrote:
> > > H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > >Could this be an architecture-specific problem? I'm on an i386 FYI.
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is IA64 specific.
> > [snip]
> > 
> > Actually, I just checked on sparc: it shows a similar peculiarity,
> > although not as pronounced:
> > 
> > % grep -r SIGSTKSZ /usr/include
> > /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ        2048
> > /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define SIGSTKSZ   8192
> > /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ   4096
> > /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ      16384
> > /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ     4096
> > /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ        16384
> 
> Please read Bdale Garbee and David Mosberger's mail.  I attached it.
> This is IA-64 stable glibc problem.  Sid is already fixed.

Ah, I see. Did you check sparc64 stable too? Is that fixed as well?

> I would like to know it's really important or not for stable glibc.
[snip]

Sorry, I don't know enough about these header files to decide.


T

-- 
This sentence is false.



Reply to: