Subject: Re: is mozilla very slow on alpha, or is mozilla-gtk2 slow everywhere?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/10/2004 17:45:39
[ On Sunday, March 7, 2004 at 18:16:49 (-0500), email@example.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: is mozilla very slow on alpha, or is mozilla-gtk2 slow everywhere?
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:41:14PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > So, I take it pulling in the ld.elf_so fixes to the netbsd-1-6 branch
> > for Alpha wasn't too difficult. Maybe I'll give that a shot tonight and
> > see what happens....
> I may have taken the lazy route. I think I just did a full build
> of -current and then copied ld.elf_so over to my 1.6 boxes. There were
> no -current dependencies.
Well that wouldn't do me very much good because I have to be able to
rebuild from source and re-install on occasion....
I did manage to get the ld.elf_so sources from -current to compile on
1.6.x, but it won't run -- it dumps core, but of course in such a way
that GDB is useless (at least on the alpha). I may have missed updating
some header in src/include (I only updated dlfcn.h).
BTW, the error spewed by a dynamic-linked binary when there's no
ld.elf_so program to run is not very kind to an xterm. Here's an
example of it, after filtering through "od -c":
0000000 177 E L F 002 001 001 002 : n o t f o
0000020 u n d \n 220 001 240 035 : n o t f o
0000040 u n d \n 001 @ : n o t f o u n
0000060 d \n 220 001 : n o t f o u n d \n
0000100 001 005 : n o t f o u n d \n 001 h
0000120 270 h 270 001 001 007 h 270 h 270 001 : n o t
0000140 f o u n d \n 001 001 007 h 270 h 270 001 :
0000160 n o t f o u n d \n h 270 h 270 001
0000200 : n o t f o u n d \n 001 h 270 001
0000220 : n o t f o u n d \n 001 330 :
0000240 n o t f o u n d \n 330 : n o t
0000260 f o u n d \n
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com> Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>