On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:14:42PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org wrote:
glibc 2.19 has changed the libc ABI on s390, more specifically the
setjmp
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net wrote:
Hi Aurelien,
On 18-Jun-13, at 6:05 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
This is true that they have recently contacted me through another email
address, but I haven't found time to work on that. Just stay tuned.
That's
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Julien Danjou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anything from an outsider that could help?
I've seen this on-and-off again on the hppa-linux port. The issue has,
in my experience, been a compiler problem. My standard operating
procedure is to methodically add
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen this on-and-off again on the hppa-linux port. The issue has,
in my experience, been a compiler problem. My standard operating
procedure is to methodically add volatile to the atomic.h operations
until it goes
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand all that, but the question still stands: is the compiler
really moving a memory write past a memory barrier? ISTR we did have
a discussion on gcc-list about that, but it was a while ago and should
now be
Branden,
The long story, for those interested:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2002/debian-x-200208/msg00091.html
(and read the whole thread)
The short story:
I need people with root on machines of your given architecture to
compile and run the attached C program. It consists of code
6 matches
Mail list logo
