On 05/15/2011 04:39 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 09:28 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Mike Hommey wrote:
I just found out that gcc is compiled with --with-arch-32=i586, which
effectively
On 05/16/2011 04:36 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I think any claim that Debian supports 486-class processors is more of
an aspiration. What maintainer has the time to test on such antiques
regularly?
Well, nobody is running regular kernel
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Matthias Klose wrote:
Assuming we can't just do away with i486 support for now, did anyone track
down exactly what was causing breakages that forced the change from
march=486 to march=586?
libgomp assumes 586; there were some GFortran/OMP issues on i386.
assumes 586 is
Hi,
I just found out that gcc is compiled with --with-arch-32=i586, which
effectively means it builds with -march=i586 by default (and that it
still claims an i486-linux-gnu target).
I'm wondering. Is the project at large aware that we're not building for
i486, but for i586 ? That even the
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Mike Hommey wrote:
I just found out that gcc is compiled with --with-arch-32=i586, which
effectively means it builds with -march=i586 by default (and that it
still claims an i486-linux-gnu target).
I'm wondering. Is the project at large aware that we're not building for
On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 09:28 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Mike Hommey wrote:
I just found out that gcc is compiled with --with-arch-32=i586, which
effectively means it builds with -march=i586 by default (and that it
still claims an i486-linux-gnu target).
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 09:28 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Mike Hommey wrote:
I just found out that gcc is compiled with --with-arch-32=i586, which
effectively means it builds with -march=i586 by default (and that
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 14:08:00 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'm wondering. Is the project at large aware that we're not building for
i486, but for i586 ? That even the maintainer doesn't know why for
sure[1] and that no changelog entry documents when or why that happened?
(nothing in
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'm wondering. Is the project at large aware that we're not building for
i486, but for i586 ? That even the maintainer doesn't know why for
No. And unless we got a bug report form an i486 user,
On Sunday 15 May 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'm wondering. Is the project at large aware that we're not building
for i486, but for i586 ? That even the maintainer doesn't know why for
On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 21:48 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'm wondering. Is the project at large aware that we're not building for
i486, but for i586 ? That even the maintainer doesn't know why
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I think any claim that Debian supports 486-class processors is more of
an aspiration. What maintainer has the time to test on such antiques
regularly?
Well, nobody is running regular kernel regression testing on 486-class
hardware AFAIK, and that
12 matches
Mail list logo
