From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15308 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2003 05:41:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15301 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2003 05:41:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2003 05:41:50 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h185fm427022; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:41:48 -0600 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 05:41:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302080541.h185fm427022@duracef.shout.net> To: ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] thread local storage tests Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 Elena Z writes: > What glibc(s) were you using? It may also be due to slightly versions > of binutils, even though, you are also using HEAD binutils, and it > should work there. glibc 2.2.93-5-rh, the vendor libc that comes with red hat linux 8.0. My tables say: 'osversion=red-hat-8.0' and 'libc=vendor'. > Do you have the gdb.logs for the cases that almost work? Errr, I already moved them to /dev/null. Damn. But I can re-generate them easily. ftp://ftp.shout.net/pub/users/mec/gdb/2003-02-07a-tls.tar.gz The '7a' is because it's a different run than the tables that I published. Everything is in there. There is one directory for each configuration tested, with a 'gdb-test-run.xml', 'gdb.sum', 'gdb.log', and 'test.tar.gz'. That last file is a tarball of the actual 'test' directory which has the juicy executables. Michael C