[Top] [All Lists]

Re: o32 glibc-2.3.5

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: o32 glibc-2.3.5
From: David Cummings <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:55:58 -0400
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; 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=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <>
Reply-to: David Cummings <>
On 7/27/05, Maciej W. Rozycki <> 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,

The way that can be named is not the Way.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>