Comment 59 for bug 417009

As another round of debugging passes, I've been trying to isolate the specific changes between karmic and jaunty which caused the regression in the first place. I haven't been testing on lucid since it stands to reason the cause of the UNO failure between karmic and lucid is unchanged. The test results have been baffling ...

For reference purposes:

Control Tests:
jaunty chroot + jaunty toolchain = PASS
karmic chroot + karmic toolchain = FAIL

karmic chroot + karmic gcc-4.3 = FAIL
karmic chroot + jaunty binutils = FAIL
karmic chroot + jaunty binutils + karmic gcc-4.3 = FAIL

karmic chroot + karmic binutils + karmic gcc-4.3 + jaunty glibc = XPASS
jaunty chroot + karmic glibc = XFAIL

I think we're dealing with a very bazaar interaction between OOo, the toolchain, and glibc. I can repeat the above tests with jaunty's gcc-4.3 grafted onto karmic, or via versus, but I'm questioning if it would make a realistic difference as there isn't a lot of changes between jaunty->karmic gcc-4.3 except a new minor vesion.

I'm honestly stumped at the root cause at the moment, and may have to look at disassembling the binaries to determine the root differences between them.