Hi,
At Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:10:18 +0200,
Harald Nordg�rd-Hansen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Nordgård-Hansen) writes:
In addition, there seems to be changes in how hardware multiplication
and division is handled (umul/udiv/smul/sdiv). In 2.4.21-rc2,
do_user_muldiv is only called for
If this bug is occured by kernel changes, then this bug should be
reassigned to kernel-image-2.4.21-{sun4*,sparc*} package.
debian-sparc people, do you know that 2.4.21 sparc kernel has incomplete
trap routine? Bugs#203322 and #203324 say something about this:
#203322: python2.2:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sun4c and sun4m-softmul owners should stick with woody.
Which machines are sun4m-softmul as opposed to sun4m?
sparcstation classic
sparcstation lx
sparcstation 10 (various processors)
sparcstation 20 (various processors)
--
Blars Blarson
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 22:38:45 -0700
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which machines are sun4m-softmul as opposed to sun4m?
sparcstation classic
sparcstation lx
sparcstation 10 (various processors)
sparcstation 20 (various processors)
Depends upon the processor installed, Cypress cpus
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this bug is occured by kernel changes, then this bug should be
reassigned to kernel-image-2.4.21-{sun4*,sparc*} package.
Nope, this bug occurred by libc6/gcc changes. It is masked/fixed by
using kernel 2.4.21, current libc6 is incompatible with all
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
old v7/v8softmul was bringing performance down noticably (and I mean
visually being able to measure small task
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] davem@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 22:38:45 -0700
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which machines are sun4m-softmul as opposed to sun4m?
Depends upon the processor installed, Cypress cpus are the ones that
are sun4m-softmul softmul. These are
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:08:15AM +0200, Harald Nordg?rd-Hansen wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
old v7/v8softmul was bringing
At Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:27:00 -0400,
Ben Collins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:08:15AM +0200, Harald Nordg?rd-Hansen wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Ben Collins wrote:
Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
old v7/v8softmul was bringing performance down noticably (and I mean
visually being able to measure small task
On Wed, 2003-08-06 12:43:45 -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Ben Collins wrote:
Will sarge ever support at least the sun4m-softmul people, or will
they be stuck with woody from now on?
i386 seems to be just dieing, so why
11 matches
Mail list logo
