From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753176AbYEYVtY (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 17:49:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751431AbYEYVtO (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 17:49:14 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:36815 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750786AbYEYVtO (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 17:49:14 -0400 X-Authenticated: #44953887 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18NW5FZl1YNB6RlLhlW3bGgdTKm/OJgv2tay0TOmD BBO/GRWLZq2rcJ Subject: Re: [BUG: 2.6.26-rc3] ERROR: "____ilog2_NaN" undefined From: Mirco Tischler To: Adrian Bunk Cc: lkml , Greg Kroah-Hartman In-Reply-To: <20080525210329.GN1791@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> References: <1211735607.14556.14.camel@mtlp.tischlernetz> <20080525181118.GG1791@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <1211742202.14556.25.camel@mtlp.tischlernetz> <20080525201807.GK1791@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <1211749036.16921.16.camel@mtlp.tischlernetz> <20080525210329.GN1791@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-WwTRrhhGj3+Zj4HTlmQ8" Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 23:49:11 +0200 Message-Id: <1211752151.16921.25.camel@mtlp.tischlernetz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-WwTRrhhGj3+Zj4HTlmQ8 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mo, 2008-05-26 at 00:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Can you try building without ccache? >=20 Doesn't help, as expected. Man, I just realised what a great piece of software ccache is;) > Can you also try downloading the kernel sources as a tarball from=20 > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing ? Why should I? A fresh checkout of the mainline git-tree in combination with= make clean should have the same effect, shouldn't it?(I already did that) > > Btw: you noticed that this is x86_64 and not i386? >=20 > I noticed (but I currently only have a 32bit userspace, and for this=20 > kind of error it shouldn't matter). Ok. I just wanted to make sure it's no difference. > cu > Adrian >=20 Thanks Mirco --=-WwTRrhhGj3+Zj4HTlmQ8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBIOd7Xz+diZ7c2xfgRApd3AJ4+B+qIc4L+VEderkOfj69z1V00CwCdEmQd Z7tnEp5wkhdNzh5c45ViqZA= =6lqE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-WwTRrhhGj3+Zj4HTlmQ8--