|To:||"Maciej W. Rozycki" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Subject:||Re: o32 glibc-2.3.5|
|From:||David Cummings <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:55:58 -0400|
|Domainkey-signature:||a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tjbMPGp6ruVfKJWgNBrNeO+V9qL/B1nfMuf6yTqc8w3En2Oqrt7yjriUuInAtsccKl/PLIA3I+8IiTCeS0NB+fgVORiJFxwkk7zY58eLaM1JPB0Aps+lZ2bmPSsufDLiNvDTMbYrUPNQcHjhXaohCOkOCUM83A7x8UJtqyH0gwQ=|
|Reply-to:||David Cummings <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
On 7/27/05, Maciej W. Rozycki <email@example.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, David Cummings wrote: > > > greatly appreciate it. I've been looking in glibc's bugzilla but can't > > find the right bug. Thanks! > > #758 > > Maciej > Alright, thanks. I had found that, but it didn't seem to apply to the problem with socket, as that had already been applied when the socket happened. I'm also now having a problem with n32 which is similar if not the same as the one Rolf had not too long ago. Something about a __fork_block not being found. Anyplace else I should look? Thanks, -Dave -- The way that can be named is not the Way.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|