From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DzWFl-0006Vv-48 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:06:33 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j71954Ch031365; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:05:04 GMT Received: from mail.phys.uu.nl (mail.phys.uu.nl [131.211.32.64]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j71953mb013797 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:05:04 GMT Received: from localhost (amavis.phys.uu.nl [131.211.32.145]) by mail.phys.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547FE7EDD for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:05:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.phys.uu.nl ([131.211.32.64]) by localhost (mail.phys.uu.nl [131.211.32.145]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13224-09 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:05:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (235pc222.sshunet.nl [145.97.222.235]) by mail.phys.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98357ED6 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:05:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Jitse Venselaar To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: x86_64 optimization patches for glibc. Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:04:38 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <42E258A7.5080501@telia.com> <42E55ADB.8030201@telia.com> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4108440.SyqmOGJeLu"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200508011105.14688.janjitse@gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at phys.uu.nl X-Archives-Salt: a4927d24-b96f-4867-8105-30c3fc584255 X-Archives-Hash: 8fe87ac75e1166f4cf369163dabc9744 --nextPart4108440.SyqmOGJeLu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:24, Duncan wrote: > Simon Strandman posted <42E55ADB.8030201@telia.com>, excerpted below, on > > Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:34:19 +0200: > > Done! Bug #100289 > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100289 > > > > Tell me if I need to provide any more information. > Do note that any issues that might exist would seem to disappear once the > entire system is compiled against the patched glibc. That's why SuSE can > get away with running the patch -- their entire amd64 release will have > been compiled against the patched glibc. Thus, there are no known issues > with doing a stage-1 bootstrap with these patches, since by the time the > system is up and running, it'll all be compiled against the patched glibc. > Likewise, there are no known issues at this time, should one decide to > patch glibc, and then do an emerge --emptytree. In any case, however, > doing your own glibc patching, regardless of what the patch is, is likely > to blacklist any bugs you may file. That's something that may be > worthwhile to keep in mind. > As the reporter of the problem with nano, I'd like to make 1 correction to= =20 this report: Recompiling nano and its depencies did not fix the crashes. It= =20 just fixed the eating of the file.=20 I did not recompile my entire system, but a crash of such a small and basic= =20 app as nano made me not want to do this outside of a chroot, which I=20 currently do not have the means for.=20 I reread my report, and I saw it was not clear that recompiling nano and it= s=20 dependencies did not fix the crashes. Sorry for the confusion. Jan Jitse --nextPart4108440.SyqmOGJeLu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBC7eXKe5JQSdZZ+OYRApp+AJ9tjEVePwTq5PPQiKINhXITs1Tz4gCfRKHP JVNHr+2GnvWXMwdXsoKwgwI= =ep9F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4108440.SyqmOGJeLu-- -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list