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 1E2RNe-0002FD-I3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:30:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j79AT0RR000919; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:29:00 GMT Received: from pne-smtpout2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (pne-smtpout2-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.164]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j79ASxux020421 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:29:00 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.236] (81.226.250.213) by pne-smtpout2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (7.2.060.1) (authenticated as u18221075) id 42B94E290074D4DA; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:29:26 +0200 Message-ID: <42F8857B.1030700@telia.com> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:29:15 +0200 From: Simon Strandman User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: sv, en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org, Jan Jitse Venselaar Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: x86_64 optimization patches for glibc. References: <42E258A7.5080501@telia.com> <42E55ADB.8030201@telia.com> <200508011105.14688.janjitse@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200508011105.14688.janjitse@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0ead6c7d-3a12-4ad4-b5ba-99b75d7b7ba6 X-Archives-Hash: 4ef573e2c190feb3a67fc6e05562a002 Jan Jitse Venselaar skrev: >As the reporter of the problem with nano, I'd like to make 1 correction to >this report: Recompiling nano and its depencies did not fix the crashes. It >just fixed the eating of the file. >I did not recompile my entire system, but a crash of such a small and basic >app as nano made me not want to do this outside of a chroot, which I >currently do not have the means for. >I reread my report, and I saw it was not clear that recompiling nano and its >dependencies did not fix the crashes. Sorry for the confusion. > >Jan Jitse > > I have a theory about the nano problem. Could you please try with nano 1.2.5 instead and see if it still craches? I believe this might be a bug in nano 1.3.X and not a problem with the amd64 strings patch, it just exposes the bug. Nano 1.3.8 running under Suse 9.3 suffers from exactly the same problem (craching when searching). But if I downgrade it to 1.2.5 it's completly stable. And 1.3.X is actually the unstable development branch of nano while 1.2.X is the stable so it could very well contain bugs. -- Simon Strandman -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list