On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 01:32:54AM -0400, Jim Crilly wrote:
Make the login environment be sparc32 by default. Doesn't that
solve the problem? And for die-hard 64-bit people like me they
can undo this via some configuration mechanism.
It is one option.
That's probably too
libncurses5 for sparc64 has been around for a long time. I don't use
anything other than menuconfig, so I can't speak for other ui interfaces.
There also does not exist the necessary 64-bit versions of the
graphical libraries needed to use the graphical kernel configurator.
But one can
You're right. Didn't get down that far. As far as I'm concerned, the
default 64-bit is the right thing. But it's hard to convince long time
users that a machine that is 99% 32-bit userspace, should compile 64-bit
binaries by default, when 99% of the time, those same people are going to
want
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:27:22PM -0700, David S.Miller wrote:
From: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:21:57 -0400
But (and this but is for David), that means users can't simply do
apt-get source foo; cd foo-1.1; dpkg-buildpackage and get the same build
they got
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:29:01AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lack of a 64 bit compiler able to compile to a 64bit sparc
version 9b instruction set is really, really, really, really pissing
me and hundreds if not thousands of other people off.
You're the first person I've heard
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:04:52AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
Actually, it works just like it is supposed to work. That may not be the
same as in the past, but it's the way it should be. Granted the surprise
is something the users will have to adjust to, but that doesn't mean
things
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:13:33AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
reassign 221621 kernel-image-sparc-2.4
quit
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:48:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 221621 kernel-source-2.4.22
Bug#221621: gcc-3.3:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:30:11AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:17:16PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
But this is a bug in the kernel source, not in the sparc kernel package.
Why should it be assigned to the kernel-image-sparc package when it has
to be fixed
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:25:21AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 06:14:30PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Just because the binaries are built somewhere else does not defer the
fact that the bug is in the source. He's having a problem building the
kernel-source package
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:42:24AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:56:05PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
why is it annoying? it just works.
It just works the opposite of the way I want it to work.
It also confuses the hell out of users who just want to compile
How about I add a file you can touch, like /etc/disable_64_gcc, and then
gcc will revert to the previous behavior no matter what?
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:43:14PM +, James Troup wrote:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Clint Adams writes:
Package: gcc
Version: 4:3.3.1-2
File: /usr/bin/gcc
Please make the sparc gcc wrapper optional for those of us who would
prefer a symlink to gcc-3.3.
why
| this overflow of stack in assembly:
|
| read_infos:
| .LLFB46:
| .loc 1 197 0
| !#PROLOGUE# 0
| save%sp, --2147483544, %sp
|
| Notice the double negative, produces by overflowing the stack pointer,
I'm not very familiar with compilers internals but (I once made
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 09:37:28AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Ben, I think, this is the same as #202924, introduced by the
sparc64-build patch. Is there a reason that -Y P,/usr/lib is replaced
with -L/usr/lib ?
I can't remember why I had done that, but feel free to revert it.
--
Debian
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:42:38PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 199436 g77
Bug#199436: blas: build failure on sparc
Bug reassigned from package `blas' to `g77'.
that's a log of information you
libg2c0 fixincludes gij-3.2
cpp-3.2 gnat-3.2
Architecture: source sparc all
Version: 1:3.2.3ds9-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian GCC maintainers debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
Changed-By: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
cpp-3.2- The GNU C preprocessor
cpp-3.2-doc
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which seems
to be the latest copy.
My understanding is that GCC 3.2 now works on all architectures.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 07:44:30PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
Has this bug been fixed yet? (I assume it has not)
I am planning to upload kde 3.1 very soon (most likely this weekend)
so I guess it will have to be with gcc 2.95 :(
The next gcc-3.2 upload will be fixed, yes.
--
Debian -
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:51:06AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
[ok, this is a Debian self made problem, so don't read on ...]
The cause is the patch we apply to build a compiler for
sparc-linux, supporting -m64 as well. In the configury, the
_GLIBCPP_HAVE_funcL detect the /lib64/libc.so.6
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:50:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Jack Howarth writes:
Now that glibc 2.3.1 is in sid, what are the plans
for the transition to gcc 3.2.1?
we are waiting for an transition plan. My assumption was Jeff would
propose a transition plan for a _coordinated_
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:20:42AM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:41:18PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
64bit itself is not broken on Debian. The part that we have trouble with
is very fine grained. Dpkg selects architecture based on gcc's target.
For us, even on sparc64
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:17:53PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
You'd probably get a better response if you actually explain your
compile error.
well, it is known that kernel source is a bit picky about compilers and
kernel developers don't want
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:40:01PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
How about telling us the error? We use out 2.95.4 compiler to create out
own images for Debian kernels. So if you want a sane answer, instead of
some rambling guesses, supply the damn
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:56:22PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
This is definitely a source bug in i810_audio.c. In 2.5.x somewhere, the
remap_page_range() function changed its expected arguments. Seems this
driver wasn't updated.
yes, i know
, but that's not the compiler.
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux--WatchGuard.com \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
directory).
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux--WatchGuard.com \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
?
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
/sys/ptrace.h
/usr/include/sys/sysmacros.h
/usr/include/sys/ucontext.h
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
build you a chroot with an older libc6/libc6-dev, can you try a
build there?
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
?
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
.
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
libstdc++. Not
sure what they are, or how to get around them, but they will be there.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
the problem?
I've no idea how you get your system to this state. Purge all the
gcc-3.0 stuff and install it all over from scratch.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL
Makefile pass -flimit-inline=1 explicitly?
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:07:20PM +0100, David Starner wrote:
From: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 08:27:14PM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 3.0.1-0pre010723
Hi,
gcc-3.0.1 contains some really unreasonable default
for -flimit
to appear, to the
amusement of educated people, in signs and notices, especially in shop
windows.
No, we aren't talking about nouns, we are talking about acronyms. The above
does not pertain to this use.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins
, atleast from what
I remember from the english textbooks.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:14:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Ben Collins writes:
Which version of dpkg-dev do you have installed?
$ dpkg -l dpkg-dev
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
|
Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold
shouldn't *automatically* upgrade if it is this dangerous?!
Which architecture?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
-3.0 to actually use the new
compiler. So the warning is pretty accurate.
However, after the next upgrade, it wont give a warning any longer.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux
for Alpha for this
upload, but am not at a machine where I can get to the CVS repository
right now. Can someone do the same in CVS?
FYI, the sparc build went fine with the fsirl patch.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins
public key. Dunno about mips.
I just tested on my netwinder, and it does not exhibit the same problem.
I can test on mips later tonight.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
Is there any mips or arm machine I could log into which has 2.95.4
installed so that I could check the aleph package
to get rid
of the offsets but that should be easy.
Yeah, caught that one. I'm working from a 04-16 snapshot now. I may
upload a new set based on this within a day or two.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic
?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
from the glibc make check
?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
compare to the other archs like sparc or i386).
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:27:26PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:28:17PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 08:05:08PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
stage1/collect2 -Y P,/usr/lib -dynamic-linker /lib/ld.so.1 -o gencheck
/usr/lib/crt1.o /usr/lib
.so (and, presumably, lots of other
libraries) to be rebuilt with the new gcc?
Yes, libdb2, needs to be rebuilt, and is in fact in incoming right now.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU
We need this in the next gcc-2.95 ASAP, please. This only affects i386.
All other archs appear to work fine.
- Forwarded message from H . J . Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 26 15:06:50 2001
From: H . J . Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED
?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
57 matches
Mail list logo
