* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-02-28 3:45 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org
2012-02-28 5:02 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: carlos at systemhalted dot org @ 2012-02-28 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
AssignedTo|unassigned at sourceware |carlos at systemhalted dot
|dot org |org
Ever Confirmed|1 |0
--- Comment #1 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org> 2012-02-28 03:45:08 UTC ---
Could you please describe your problem in more detail?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-02-28 3:45 ` [Bug ports/13778] " carlos at systemhalted dot org
@ 2012-02-28 5:02 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-02-28 16:21 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-02-28 5:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #2 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-02-28 05:02:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Could you please describe your problem in more detail?
< Detail: port glibc(with mips patch -- ports) to MIPS, rpm installed then find
/lib/libc.so.6 did not GLIBC_2.1/2.1.1/2.1.2/2.1.3, such as popen@@GLIBC_2.2.
If not patch mips with ports, `nm /lib/libc.so.6|grep popen` will find
popen@@GLIBC_2.1. Other all symbols GLIBC_2.1* was changed to GLIBC_2.2. I find
'#working mips versions were never released between 2.0 and 2.2' in file
'ports/sysdeps/mips/shlib-versions'. Q: How to fix it? May be not 2.1*?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-02-28 3:45 ` [Bug ports/13778] " carlos at systemhalted dot org
2012-02-28 5:02 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-02-28 16:21 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org
2012-02-29 1:58 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: carlos at systemhalted dot org @ 2012-02-28 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #3 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org> 2012-02-28 16:21:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Could you please describe your problem in more detail?
>
> < Detail: port glibc(with mips patch -- ports) to MIPS, rpm installed then find
> /lib/libc.so.6 did not GLIBC_2.1/2.1.1/2.1.2/2.1.3, such as popen@@GLIBC_2.2.
> If not patch mips with ports, `nm /lib/libc.so.6|grep popen` will find
> popen@@GLIBC_2.1. Other all symbols GLIBC_2.1* was changed to GLIBC_2.2. I find
> '#working mips versions were never released between 2.0 and 2.2' in file
> 'ports/sysdeps/mips/shlib-versions'. Q: How to fix it? May be not 2.1*?
Why do you need to fix it?
Are you getting an error running an old application?
What error are you seeing?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-28 16:21 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org
@ 2012-02-29 1:58 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-02-29 8:21 ` aj at suse dot de
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-02-29 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #4 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-02-29 01:58:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > Could you please describe your problem in more detail?
> >
> > < Detail: port glibc(with mips patch -- ports) to MIPS, rpm installed then find
> > /lib/libc.so.6 did not GLIBC_2.1/2.1.1/2.1.2/2.1.3, such as popen@@GLIBC_2.2.
> > If not patch mips with ports, `nm /lib/libc.so.6|grep popen` will find
> > popen@@GLIBC_2.1. Other all symbols GLIBC_2.1* was changed to GLIBC_2.2. I find
> > '#working mips versions were never released between 2.0 and 2.2' in file
> > 'ports/sysdeps/mips/shlib-versions'. Q: How to fix it? May be not 2.1*?
>
> Why do you need to fix it?
>
> Are you getting an error running an old application?
>
> What error are you seeing?
======
More details:
1, my machine arch is MIPS, port glibc to MIPS must patch(MIPS patch), ported
glibc(with MIPS patch) to MIPS, execute "strings /lib/libc.so.6|grep GLIBC"
then did not find version GLIBC_2.1, in other words, symbol version changed
from GLIBC_2.1 to GLIBC_2.2, such as fclose.
2, after that, test LSB, test mips item modify from i386, and result is
--------
Did not find fclose (GLIBC_2.1) in libc.so.6
check function: fdopen (GLIBC_2.1) in libc.so.6
Warning: did not find version tag GLIBC_2.1 in library
available version is GLIBC_2.2
Warning: did not find version tag GLIBC_2.1 in library
available version is GLIBC_2.0
--------
then FAIL once, etc.
In order to PASS all, question is which one should I do:
1) modify MIPS patch to support version GLIBC_2.1?
2) or, modify LSB check from GLIBC_2.1 to GLIBC_2.2?
(e.g. check fclose version from GLIBC_2.1 to GLIBC_2.2)
======
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 1:58 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-02-29 8:21 ` aj at suse dot de
2012-02-29 9:12 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: aj at suse dot de @ 2012-02-29 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC| |aj at suse dot de
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de> 2012-02-29 08:21:09 UTC ---
There is a bug in your old glibc if it needs GLIBC 2.1. There has never been a
working glibc release with version 2.1 in it and thus if you have it, something
went wrong in your previous installation.
If LSB demands GLIBC_2.1, then LSB is wrong and needs to be fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 8:21 ` aj at suse dot de
@ 2012-02-29 9:12 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-02-29 9:21 ` aj at suse dot de
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-02-29 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #6 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-02-29 09:12:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> There is a bug in your old glibc if it needs GLIBC 2.1. There has never been a
> working glibc release with version 2.1 in it and thus if you have it, something
> went wrong in your previous installation.
>
> If LSB demands GLIBC_2.1, then LSB is wrong and needs to be fixed.
My glibc version is 2.12.1(5/2010), I think it not old, the newest is
2.15(2/2012) for fedora18.
such as symbol popen only two versions: GLIBC_2.0 and GLIBC_2.1 provide by
glibc. Ported glibc(mips patch), symbol popen versions is GLIBC_2.0 and
GLIBC_2.2.
I think either modify LSB check popen version GLIBC_2.2(not GLIBC_2.1) or
modify glibc mips patch to support GLIBC_2.1.
I like the latter, but do not what to do.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 9:12 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-02-29 9:21 ` aj at suse dot de
2012-02-29 9:26 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: aj at suse dot de @ 2012-02-29 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de> 2012-02-29 09:21:00 UTC ---
If there's a a symbol GLIBC 2.1 in your system on MIPS, it is wrong. Please
contact those people that supplied that version of glibc on MIPS to you.
There is no Linux Standard Base for MIPS according to
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/lsb.shtml.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 9:21 ` aj at suse dot de
@ 2012-02-29 9:26 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-02-29 9:30 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-02-29 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #8 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-02-29 09:25:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> If there's a a symbol GLIBC 2.1 in your system on MIPS, it is wrong. Please
> contact those people that supplied that version of glibc on MIPS to you.
>
>
> There is no Linux Standard Base for MIPS according to
> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/lsb.shtml.
That's right. Thx.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 9:26 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-02-29 9:30 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-02-29 9:33 ` aj at suse dot de
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-02-29 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #9 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-02-29 09:29:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > If there's a a symbol GLIBC 2.1 in your system on MIPS, it is wrong. Please
> > contact those people that supplied that version of glibc on MIPS to you.
> >
> >
> > There is no Linux Standard Base for MIPS according to
> > http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/lsb.shtml.
>
> That's right. Thx.
MIPS patch is download from official website.
This platform is glibc etc., so put the question here.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 9:30 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-02-29 9:33 ` aj at suse dot de
2012-02-29 9:41 ` aj at suse dot de
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: aj at suse dot de @ 2012-02-29 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de> 2012-02-29 09:32:50 UTC ---
Which patch did you download? Please give a URL!
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 9:33 ` aj at suse dot de
@ 2012-02-29 9:41 ` aj at suse dot de
2012-02-29 14:58 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: aj at suse dot de @ 2012-02-29 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de> 2012-02-29 09:41:09 UTC ---
It is correct that there is no GLIBC_2.1 etc symbols in glibc.
So, why do you have GLIBC 2.1 in your MIPS system? Where does that came from?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 9:41 ` aj at suse dot de
@ 2012-02-29 14:58 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org
2012-02-29 19:51 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: carlos at systemhalted dot org @ 2012-02-29 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #12 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org> 2012-02-29 14:58:16 UTC ---
At Mentor Graphics (CodeSourcery) we never released a MIPS toolchain with glibc
2.12, only 2.11 and 2.13, and as far as I can tell we have never released a
toolchain for MIPS with any GLIBC_2.1 symbols.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 14:58 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org
@ 2012-02-29 19:51 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-01 2:32 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-29 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #13 from Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-29 19:50:40 UTC ---
As explained, there is no glibc bug here. Any version of LSB expecting
GLIBC_2.1 symbols on MIPS has been incorrectly ported, which is a bug in the
LSB port to be reported to the person responsible for the LSB port, not here.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-29 19:51 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-03-01 2:32 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-03-01 2:54 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-03-01 2:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #14 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-03-01 02:32:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> It is correct that there is no GLIBC_2.1 etc symbols in glibc.
>
> So, why do you have GLIBC 2.1 in your MIPS system? Where does that came from?
I see. Thx.
reply:
1, MIPS patch URL http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-ports-2.12.1.tar.bz2
2, I did port glibc(with mips patch) on MIPS directory not with MIPS toolchain
3, correct LSB check ...
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-01 2:32 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-03-01 2:54 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2012-03-01 13:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-03-01 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #15 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-03-01 02:54:33 UTC ---
Doubt：
1, Why not GLIBC_2.1 symbols on MIPS?
2, What to do if a application needed GLIBC_2.1 symbols? Must rebuild all
application in order to run them?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-01 2:54 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2012-03-01 13:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2012-03-02 1:18 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2014-06-13 14:08 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2012-03-01 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2012-03-01 13:56:18 UTC ---
The questions you ask are not bug reports. If you wish to ask something
that is not reporting a bug or related in some way to a bug, please do so
on the libc-help mailing list, not in the bug tracker.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-01 13:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2012-03-02 1:18 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
2014-06-13 14:08 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn @ 2012-03-02 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #17 from 黄卫军 <weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn> 2012-03-02 01:17:54 UTC ---
Thx all.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug ports/13778] GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported)
2012-02-28 1:29 [Bug ports/13778] New: GLIBC_2.1(MIPS ported) weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-02 1:18 ` weijun.huang at cs2c dot com.cn
@ 2014-06-13 14:08 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: fweimer at redhat dot com @ 2014-06-13 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13778
Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |security-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread