On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 19:28 +, Egbert Eich wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:25:20PM -0500, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> > From: Adam Jackson
> >
> > vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
> > actually use. Time to say goodbye.
>
> Not a good idea. I've reenabled i
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:25:20PM -0500, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> From: Adam Jackson
>
> vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
> actually use. Time to say goodbye.
Not a good idea. I've reenabled it in our enterprise product lately.
Reason: I've run into issues wi
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:25:20 -0500, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> From: Adam Jackson
>
> vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
> actually use. Time to say goodbye.
>
> The stub backend is only ever built by default on freebsd/ppc, and can't
> be doing any good there
From: Adam Jackson
vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
actually use. Time to say goodbye.
The stub backend is only ever built by default on freebsd/ppc, and can't
be doing any good there. The right fix is --disable-int10 if you want
to not ship int10 support.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:53:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 11:35 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Alan Coopersmith
> > wrote:
> > > Isn't vm86 even further limited to just those machines running the Linux
> > > kernel, not BSD or Solaris or any
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 11:35 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Alan Coopersmith
> wrote:
> > Isn't vm86 even further limited to just those machines running the Linux
> > kernel, not BSD or Solaris or anything else? (Okay, maybe that doesn't
> > take a huge chunk out o
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 08:29:50AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Isn't vm86 even further limited to just those machines running the Linux
> kernel, not BSD or Solaris or anything else? (Okay, maybe that doesn't
> take a huge chunk out of the number of machines that can run it, but it
> is rep
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:47:05PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>>
>>> Which makes me seriously doubt that these bugs can be found and fixed
>>> fast enough such that users won't be affected.
>>
>> If vm86 were an
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:47:05PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
>> Which makes me seriously doubt that these bugs can be found and fixed
>> fast enough such that users won't be affected.
>
> If vm86 were an option on anything other than 32-bit x86 I'd have
> sympathy wi
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:46:59PM +0200, ext Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 20:23 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > How about fixing those bugs before killing it?
>
> Some of them are... nontrivial.
>
> The two big ones I know of are that we don't really emulate unreal mode
> pro
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:47:05PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Which makes me seriously doubt that these bugs can be found and fixed
> fast enough such that users won't be affected.
If vm86 were an option on anything other than 32-bit x86 I'd have
sympathy with retaining it, but it's not a use
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:23:05PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> How about fixing those bugs before killing it?
Because right now there's no incentive for anyone to fix those bugs
because they can use the vm86 backend instead?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
__
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 22:47 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: Adam Jackson
> > Some of them are... nontrivial.
>
> Which makes me seriously doubt that these bugs can be found and fixed
> fast enough such that users won't be affected.
Perhaps they can consider running an older X server.
- aj
> From: Adam Jackson
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:46:59 -0400
>
> On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 20:23 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:57:01 +0100
> > > From: Matthew Garrett
> > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:15:56PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 20:23 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:57:01 +0100
> > From: Matthew Garrett
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:15:56PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:32:54PM +0200, ext Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > > vm86 has been defaulted of
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:57:01 +0100
> From: Matthew Garrett
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:15:56PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:32:54PM +0200, ext Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
> > > actually use
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:15:56PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:32:54PM +0200, ext Adam Jackson wrote:
> > vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
> > actually use. Time to say goodbye.
>
> My empirical evidences say that we can't do thi
Hi!
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:32:54PM +0200, ext Adam Jackson wrote:
> vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
> actually use. Time to say goodbye.
My empirical evidences say that we can't do this.
I had different behaviour running some systems with x86emu and
vm86 has been defaulted off since 1.6, and is still a terrible idea to
actually use. Time to say goodbye.
The stub backend is only ever built by default on freebsd/ppc, and can't
be doing any good there. The right fix is --disable-int10 if you want
to not ship int10 support.
Signed-off-by: Adam
19 matches
Mail list logo
