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

Bug#190399: Bug#246547: amd64 support for glibc 2.3.2.ds1-14



At Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:14:55 +0200,
Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 04-Jul-08 23:07, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > Please test this version:
> > 
> > 	http://www.gotom.jp/~gotom/debian/glibc/amd64
> 
> Thank you for trying my amd64-glibc-patches.
> 
> I tried to download your debs but I get the following error:
> 
> 'Forbidden - You don't have permission to access 
> /~gotom/debian/glibc/amd64/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-14_amd64.deb on this server.'

Oops.  I fixed.

> > BTW, is this dpatch written by only you?  I need to describe the
> 
> Yes, I wrote the amd64-lib.dpatch.

Thanks, I've put patches into cvs with your name in changelog.

> gcc-3.4 has much better support for amd64 than gcc-3.3 (better 
> performance, better support for large data structures, fewer internal 
> compiler errors, etc.). Some packages do no build at all with gcc-3.3 
> (e.g. gnustep-base, boost and a few others) and other packages do not 
> work if compiled with gcc-3.3 (e.g. some recent mozilla* packages).
> 
> There is a patch for gcc-3.3 ('hammer-branch') which seems to solve some 
> amd64 problems but gcc-3.3 with this patch miscompiles the linux kernel.

Hmm, gcc-3.3 is still on the way on amd64...

> I am just recompiling my own private amd64 archive using gcc-3.4.1 and 
> it seems to work quite well so far. I compiled about 2000 packages 
> up to now and only 14 of those needed simple patches to make gcc-3.4.1 
> happy. 

Cool.

> However, there is a problem with gcc-3.4 and glibc. The 'nptl' 
> pass fails when using gcc-3.4 to compile glibc and the pthread library 
> (libpthread-0.10.so) seems to be miscompiled by gcc-3.4.1
> (every binary linked to it segfaults). I will try to investigate this.
> Maybe you have an idea where these problems could come from?

Actually I have no idea.  libpthread-0.10.so is linuxthreads.  We need
to investigate this problem comparing with nptl vs linuxthreads.

Regards,
-- gotom




Reply to: