From: Andrew S. <str...@as...> - 2004-12-07 07:07:29
|
On Dec 6, 2004, at 6:52 PM, Steve Chaplin wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 15:34 -0500, Perry Greenfield wrote: >> I really appreciate Andrew's diagnosing the original problem and >> particularly in recognizing it as possibility here. This is a nasty >> kind of bug to figure out. > The original bug was reported to numarray developers Probably by the too-modest Steve Chaplin, I suspect. I forgot in my previous email that a significant component of my late-phase debugging consisted of emailing the numarray list, and getting an email from Steven Chaplin, who had independently diagnosed the problem. He had already gone much further than I -- he's the one who submitted the bug report and patch to the glibc itself: > This is the glibc bug report > http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 Jochen, that bug report contains a C program which replicates the bug. Perhaps you could send that test program to the Debian bug tracking system to spur patching? (There is an additional comment on the glibc bugzilla page saying "The test program isn't really testing what it is supposed to (the SSE status is never touched) but the SSE control change is indeed wrong." You may want to address this first if you're up for this kind of low-level fun.) To summarize, we owe a big thanks to Steve Chaplin. A heartfelt thanks, Steve! Cheers! Andrew |