From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:54:02 +0000 Subject: Re: network stack oops 2.4.1/gcc 2.95.3 From: "Iain Sandoe" To: David Edelsohn Cc: Franz Sirl , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <20010129235359.1B26D2EFD0@apollo.valhalla.net> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Hi David, Mon, Jan 29, 2001, David Edelsohn wrote: >>> "Iain Sandoe" writes: > Iain> It is not a regression test. It would not be particularly easy, either to > Iain> put 2.95.2 back up and wind back the system to the build conditions... > Iain> but the version used was 2.95.3-test2. and the bk pull was 2.4.1-pre10. > > A regression is different from a regression test. I never called > it a regression test. RTFM(ail) properly Iain ;) > I do not mean rewinding all of the way to gcc-2.95.2, but to > Franz's patched version of GCC prior to the gcc-2.95.3 changes. OK. It might be possible - I have a build timestamp on the kernel (I keep the last four or five builds) and I guess I could somehow track down which revs to get from bk. I still have the previous glibc & gcc rpms. However, (see below) I will only do this if someone really believes they will get useful info... I'm mid-way through a fairly large chunk of work ATM. > I am just trying to narrow down whether this is something new. I believe so. Because I really think I'd built that particular pull before I upgraded the tool-chain. BUT because it only happens under fairly unusual circumstances (for my set-up) I can't be 100% sure. Also it involves a depressingly large amount of system context: kernel, X, inetd, da-da-da... If it happens again - I'll see if I really have a genuine Illegal Instruction in the code stream (or I'm just trying to execute a format string ;) ciao, Iain. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/