On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:40:47PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
OK. Yours has gcc 4.2.4, and our ones have gcc 4.3.2 (that we shipped
as stable :)
I also just tried a newer packaged image, and it has the same issue.
I just tossed lenny onto my main build system and I will try to
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:36:33AM +0100, Hermann Lauer wrote:
OK. Yours has gcc 4.2.4, and our ones have gcc 4.3.2 (that we shipped
as stable :)
I also just tried a newer packaged image, and it has the same issue.
I just tossed lenny onto my main build system and I will try to
From: Hermann Lauer hermann.la...@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:33 +0100
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:40:47PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
OK. Yours has gcc 4.2.4, and our ones have gcc 4.3.2 (that we shipped
as stable :)
I also just tried a newer packaged image, and it
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:09:13PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Hermann Lauer hermann.la...@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:33 +0100
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:40:47PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
OK. Yours has gcc 4.2.4, and our ones have gcc 4.3.2 (that we shipped
From: Josip Rodin j...@entuzijast.net
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:36:24 +0100
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:09:13PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
I'm confused now :-) So does gcc-4.1.3 produce the bad kernels or does
gcc-4.3.2?
No, Hermann's mail was not relevant, the new NMI code did not exist in
5 matches
Mail list logo