This should be committed now.
Thanks.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Amaan Cheval
wrote:
> ---
> user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst | 52 ++-
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst b/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
>
On 15/08/2018 19:13, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 15/8/18 2:47 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> Ideas appreciated on how to debug this enough to find
>> the cause.
>>
>
> Does the attached patch help?
>
I have pushed this patch. I tested it on more than 500 executables on FreeBSD
and the process was
On 20/08/2018 16:12, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 13/08/18 02:01, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 10 Aug 2018, at 5:39 pm, Sebastian Huber
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Due to the hierarchical structure an index is not absolutely necessary
>>> and an empty index is not helpful.
>> Are there index entries in the
On 13/08/18 02:01, Chris Johns wrote:
On 10 Aug 2018, at 5:39 pm, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
Due to the hierarchical structure an index is not absolutely necessary
and an empty index is not helpful.
Are there index entries in the doc source that are not being processed? If so
the bug is in
On 14/08/18 01:21, Joel Sherrill wrote:
This is a new port and I don't see any reason to even pretend
that the old stack is an option.
How do you all feel about forcing libnetworking to disabled
on this port?
The old network stack doesn't work on 64-bit targets. I spent roughly
one day to
---
user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst | 52 ++-
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst b/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
index 19c4461..c13f369 100644
--- a/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
+++ b/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
@@ -136,10
