On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:18:59PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> /usr/obj/vol/share/src/i386/usr/include/stdbool.h:41: warning: useless keyword o
> r type name in empty declaration
> /usr/obj/vol/share/src/i386/usr/include/stdbool.h:41: warning: empty declaration
> I get those a lot now... pl
On 12:10-0700, Aug 15, 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
> I don't know if I'm the only one having this problem, but I haven't
> been able to make a complete buildworld for a couple of
> days now. The last time I upgraded was arround August 5.
> I have been getting a signal 11 consistently in the same
--
>>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
>>> stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
>>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities
> > between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final
> > release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at
> > me.
>
> 3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you
> It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this
> sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into
> Jesse Gross's trolling here).
This was *not* about trolling the mailing list. I wish I were
intelligent enough to predict the behavior of thousands of people, most
of w
>
> That was because the patches were not being submitted back
> against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had
> signed the assignment of rights to the FSF.
That was because GCC 2.95.x branch is closed for maintenance. The is no
need in complex theory when a simple explanation is m
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:09:26PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> Someone had posted fixes to rtc for -current awhile back, and I
> have those updates saved away somewhere. If Josef's recent
> changes haven't fixed everything, I'll try to dig up that message.
>
My recent commit just fixed
At 1:36 PM -0400 8/15/02, Robert Watson wrote:
>Someone needs to restructure the driver to match some our other
>pseudo-device drivers where the device is properly created as
>part of module initialization. If fixed this and other things
>locally at one point on my notebook, but eventually got
>s
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent
> our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with
> RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for
> serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just to replace i
Sorry this is a little late. I committed a change today that removes
cam_extend.[ch] and removes usage of it from all periphs. If you're
working on a new CAM periph driver, please use dev->si_drv1 instead. See
cam/scsi/scsi_da.c for an example.
I've tested a full build of the patch for a while
cc -pg -O -pipe -I. -I/vol/share/src/lib/libncurses -I/vol/share/src/lib/libncu
rses/../../contrib/ncurses/ncurses -I/vol/share/src/lib/libncurses/../../contrib
/ncurses/include -Wall -DFREEBSD_NATIVE -DNDEBUG -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DTERMIOS -c u
nctrl.c -o unctrl.po
In file included from curses.h:112
> Cool.
>
> We can call it "3.3" in the release.
Terry, we will name it the same way we name our current GCC 3.1
snapshots. FreeBSD always shipped tweaked version of GCC with a bunch
of local changes merges in. In STABLE, for example, we have
gcc version 2.95.4 20020320 [FreeBSD]
> Just lik
Jesse Gross wrote:
> Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
>
> Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
> anything.
>
> It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
> line of 5.x releases.
I believe David O'brien answer this the last 3 ti
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI
> kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers
> are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between 3.2 and 3.3, but they are
> not giving any guaranrtees.
Cool.
We can call it "3.3" in
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 01:34:47PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
| Actually, I've gone ahead and committed the change, update to
| uipc_syscalls.c:1.128 and see if the problem goes away. (if you do it by
| hand locally, make sure to assign error = EINVAL before jumping).
|
That did it. Thanks!
> I agree that gcc32 is not an ideal target either, but by going to it,
> we can upgrade to gcc33 when it's available and not loose binary
> compatibility (at least, according to the gcc folks). I'd rather
> move to gcc32 right now and get the binary compatibility pain out of
> the way, rather th
>
>
> > Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
> > will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
> > important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
>
> Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
> will be pret
I got that but a recent cvsup fixed it. Not sure what the problem was but
there were a few patches to colldef on Wednesday.
-Nate
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
> I don't know if I'm the only one having this problem, but I haven't
> been able to make a complete buildworld for a coupl
I don't know if I'm the only one having this problem, but I haven't
been able to make a complete buildworld for a couple of
days now. The last time I upgraded was arround August 5.
I have been getting a signal 11 consistently in the same spot.
===> secure/usr.sbin/sshd
===> share
===> share/coll
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:59:11AM -0600, Long, Scott wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
> >
> > Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
> > anything.
> >
> > It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
> >
> Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
> will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
> important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty short and 3.3
>
> Hi,
>
> Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
>
> Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
> anything.
>
> It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
> line of 5.x releases.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Jesse Gross
Yes, moving to gcc3
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:11:05AM -0500, dmk wrote:
>
> Is anybody successfully using the port emulators/rtc with vmware2 on
> -current?
>
> While the port builds and installs fine, a /dev/rtc device never appears.
>
> ISTM that the rtc device does a make_dev as part of the device open()
> rat
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
Just a thought.
Jesse Gross
My recollection is that the problem relates to calling make_dev() from the
attach routine, and attach from the open call, and of course you can't
open before you make_dev with devfs. Someone needs to restructure the
driver to match some our other pseudo-device drivers where the device is
properly
Actually, I've gone ahead and committed the change, update to
uipc_syscalls.c:1.128 and see if the problem goes away. (if you do it by
hand locally, make sure to assign error = EINVAL before jumping).
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Net
Hmm. This could be my bug due to mixing up a -stable and a -current
patch. I modified accept() to reject negative sockaddr name lengths, but
it looks like I botched the return path:
if (uap->name) {
error = copyin(uap->anamelen, &namelen, sizeof (namelen));
> > That will certainly be a big help. When we got rid of the pkg/ and
> > patches/ directories I begged Satoshi to go farther and put patches in
> > main port directory and get rid of pkg/COMMENT. That was back when we
> > hit 3000 ports -- I guess people didn't want to accept we would hit 8000
I'd debate "silly," but you're more or less correct.
The userland is really a bit mixed. Most of /sbin and /usr/sbin is from
FreeBSD (kind of necessary), while most of /usr/bin is from Debian.
---Nathan
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:51:49AM +0200, Mario Goebbels wro
See my HEADS UP message to -CURRENT and the 20020815 entry to
src/UPDATING.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:38:41AM -0700, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> --
> >>> Rebuilding the tempo
--
>>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
>>> stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
>>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:11:05AM -0500 I heard the voice of
dmk, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Is anybody successfully using the port emulators/rtc with vmware2 on
> -current?
[...]
Replying to myself...
I have since hacked rtc so it works with vmware2 on my -CURRENT system
dated February 4, 200
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Nate Lawson wrote:
:I upgraded a machine from 4.6R to -CURRENT today and had similar
:problems. Comments below.
:
I upgraded from 4.5R to -CURRENT last night, and had /no/ issues.
:On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, David Wolfskill wrote:
:> To upgrade from 4.x
Is anybody successfully using the port emulators/rtc with vmware2 on
-current?
While the port builds and installs fine, a /dev/rtc device never appears.
ISTM that the rtc device does a make_dev as part of the device open()
rather than at module load and that vmware doesn't work like that.
Havi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:07:29AM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
> What I want to know is, our buildworld does not been supported without
> -O or not.
AFAIK it world should compile with -O (I seem to remember parts breaking
with -O0 for instance).
- alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTE
36 matches
Mail list logo
