=== ramana__ is now known as ramana
=== ramana__ is now known as ramana
=== lamont` is now known as lamont
[16:36] <ramana_> doko_: glad to hear the oo.o problem got fixed. 
[16:37] <doko_> ramana_: yes, thanks for the help! I'll follow-up with email.
[16:39] <ramana_> doko_: anytime - Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. 
[19:46] <ramana> doko_: ping
=== ramana_ is now known as ramana
[22:59] <doko_> ramana: pong
[23:00] <ramana> doko: I tried the binutils 2.19.92-rc2 snapshot on an arm-linux board that I've got access to running Debian Lenny and don't see the test failures that you see. However the number of tests I run are significantly lower than yours. 
[23:02] <ramana> Ofcourse the 2.19.92-rc2 snapshot includes Jakub's gas patch . 
[23:02] <doko_> yes, the snapshot includes the patch as well.
[23:03] <doko_> for historical reasons the binutils in ubuntu includes some of the hj lu patches; checked that disabling these doesn't help
[23:03] <ramana> ok
[23:05] <ramana> as well as trying gcc-4.3 doesn't help . 
[23:06] <ramana> ?
[23:06] <doko_> right, and building with -fno-stack-protector -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE neither
[23:06] <doko_> currently looking at our buildlogs at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+publishinghistory when the failures do appear
[23:08] <doko_> they are in 2.19.51.20090620, not in 2.19.51.20090423
[23:10] <doko_> in 2.19.51.20090515
[23:12] <ramana> I'm still new to launchpad. 
[23:12] <ramana> so I clicked a link and got here https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/2.19.51.20090515-0ubuntu1/+build/1030198 - not sure where you are seeing the test logs
[23:13] <doko_> there is link called buildlog, search for the second occurrance of test-summary
[23:14] <doko_> they are in 20090508
[23:17] <doko_> ramana: between 20090423 and 20090508
[23:19] <ramana> ok . atleast we know the range now to look at. 
[23:28] <ramana> Is this failure only armel specific or do you see it on other arch's as well ? 
[23:30] <ramana> I thought your report on binutils@ suggested that you were seeing similar failures on mips ? 
[23:32] <doko_> yes, I see these on mips as well
[23:32] <doko_> and mipsel
[23:34] <doko_> but mips fails in 2.19.1 as well
[23:35] <doko_> and 2.18.1
[23:35] <ramana> hmmm
[23:37] <doko_> now running a 20090430 build
[23:37] <ramana> ok
[23:40] <ramana> well do any more hj lu patches need to be backported in . I see there is a http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/binutils-2.20.51.0.1.tar.bz2
[23:40] <ramana> unless you've seen this already . 
[23:48] <doko_> no, didn't look yet, but as we don't see this in the debian build, I doubt we find the solution there. 
[23:48] <doko_> debian has one more difference: built with -march=armv4 by default