Am 11.06.2013 16:09, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
Daniel Schepler dschepler at gmail.com writes:
(Sorry about the lack of threading... for some reason I'm unable to find
the
links to download mbox archives for replying to the messages.)
Matthias Klose wrote:
Multi-Arch isn't there yet. And even if it is, the multilib builds should be
kept for some more releases. There is a lot to do on the Debian side, and on
the upstream side. So maybe it helps your understanding to get the required
patches upstream to get multilib working
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:59:31AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Why is gcc built multi-lib anyway?
because developers expect to work it. there is a lot of code which just uses
-m32/-m64 which should not deliberately broken.
This explains i386/amd64 multilib, which, while an ugly thing that
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:45:21AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Matthias Klose wrote:
Multi-Arch isn't there yet. And even if it is, the multilib builds should be
kept for some more releases. There is a lot to do on the Debian side, and on
the upstream side. So maybe it helps your
Adam Borowski wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to have lib32gcc1:amd64 merely depend on libgcc1:i386?
It'd save a massive amount of complexity.
But that reintroduces the problem which convinced me there's a reason to keep
lib32gcc1 in the first place: suppose libgcc1:i386 and libgcc1:amd64 get out
Am 12.06.2013 19:18, schrieb Adam Borowski:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:59:31AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Why is gcc built multi-lib anyway?
because developers expect to work it. there is a lot of code which just uses
-m32/-m64 which should not deliberately broken.
This explains
Am 12.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Adam Borowski:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:45:21AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Matthias Klose wrote:
Multi-Arch isn't there yet. And even if it is, the multilib builds should be
kept for some more releases. There is a lot to do on the Debian side, and
on
the
Daniel Schepler dschepler at gmail.com writes:
(Sorry about the lack of threading... for some reason I'm unable to find
the
links to download mbox archives for replying to the messages.)
https://www.mirbsd.org/cvs.cgi/contrib/hosted/tg/getarticle?rev=HEAD
Just call that with either the
On 06/06/13 21:10, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Be aware that x32 has sizeof(time_t) sizeof(long), so you should expect
SUBSTANTIAL porting of packages to be required. Particularly since that
arrangement is explicitly unsupported by the
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 21:04 +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 06/06/13 21:10, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Be aware that x32 has sizeof(time_t) sizeof(long), so you should expect
SUBSTANTIAL porting of packages to be required. Particularly
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:36:48PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 21:04 +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 06/06/13 21:10, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Be aware that x32 has sizeof(time_t) sizeof(long), so you should
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Daniel Schepler wrote:
(Sorry about the lack of threading... for some reason I'm unable to find the
links to download mbox archives for replying to the messages.)
The Debian HTML archives list message-ids and have mailto: reply links
that include
Russ Allbery rra at debian.org writes:
Be aware that x32 has sizeof(time_t) sizeof(long), so you should expect
So has MirBSD/i386 (since 2004-06-19) and NetBSD (since roughly a year).
Most frequent thing is format specifiers when struct tm.tm_year is time_t
instead of long (which is a
(Sorry about the lack of threading... for some reason I'm unable to find the
links to download mbox archives for replying to the messages.)
In response to Adam's comments about debootstrap not working because findutils
FTBFS: Yes, I'm aware of that, and for now you have to include unreleased as
Hi!
The latest sid upgrades produce dependencies on:
ii libc6-dev-x322.17-5
i386 Embedded GNU C Library: X32 ABI Development Libraries for
AMD64
ii libc6-x322.17-5
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:23:14AM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
tglase@tglase:~ $ fgrep X32 /boot/config-3.9-1-amd64
# CONFIG_X86_X32 is not set
See http://wiki.debian.org/X32Port and
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg00355.html
Helmut
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Helmut Grohne helmut at subdivi.de writes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg00355.html
Ah okay. That one got lost in GMane’s threading because the original
mail wasn’t posted in this newsgroup.
I still think it schizo that x32 is only halfway in and the Linux
kernel Debian team
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 11:27:15AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:23:14AM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
tglase@tglase:~ $ fgrep X32 /boot/config-3.9-1-amd64
# CONFIG_X86_X32 is not set
See http://wiki.debian.org/X32Port and
On 2013-06-06 15:35, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
I still think it schizo that x32 is only halfway in and the Linux
kernel Debian team mostly sends signals that it wants to block the
architecture altogether. And the multilibs thing… nobody seems to
have commented on it either.
Sometimes it helps if
Thorsten Glaser t.gla...@tarent.de writes:
No complaints against x32 per sé, I want to crossgrade there once it’s
in, but for as long as it’s broken like this, it doesn’t make it look
good.
Be aware that x32 has sizeof(time_t) sizeof(long), so you should expect
SUBSTANTIAL porting of
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thorsten Glaser t.gla...@tarent.de writes:
No complaints against x32 per sé, I want to crossgrade there once it’s
in, but for as long as it’s broken like this, it doesn’t make it look
good.
Be aware that x32 has
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 22:01:48 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
It was Linus' decree that no new ABI is allowed to suffer from the Y2k38
bug even if its word size is 32 bit, and I'd say he's right. This means
that this problem will bite us the next time another 32 bit arch comes,
so there's no
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's not quite as bad as the porting required for large file support,
but the consequences of not porting are worse.
How come? I don't think runtime bugs that are not some kind of a Y2k38
On Thu, 2013-06-06 at 22:40 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 22:01:48 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
It was Linus' decree that no new ABI is allowed to suffer from the Y2k38
bug even if its word size is 32 bit, and I'd say he's right. This means
that this problem will
24 matches
Mail list logo
