On 31 Aug, Kris Kennaway wrote:
panic: page fault
panic messages:
---
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
fault virtual address = 0x4
Looks like a NULL structure pointer dereference. It looks like the
access is four bytes into the structure.
#7 0xc021d91f in
--
Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
On 31 Aug, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Another page fault in umount
I haven't seen any reports of this one before.
#6 0xc0399a48 in calltrap () at {standard input}:98
#7 0xc029198d in vflush (mp=0xc5e6, rootrefs=0, flags=2) at vnode_if.h:309
#8 0xc0200eaa in devfs_unmount (mp=0xc5e6,
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 10:31:15PM -0700, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
--
[...]
--
Kernel build for GENERIC started on Sat Aug 31 22:28:29 PDT 2002
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Don Lewis wrote:
This code in vflush() bothers me:
mtx_lock(mntvnode_mtx);
loop:
for (vp = TAILQ_FIRST(mp-mnt_nvnodelist); vp; vp = nvp) {
/*
* Make sure this vnode wasn't reclaimed in getnewvnode().
*
Hi,
Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:39:45 +0900 の刻に「ume」、すなわち
Hajimu UMEMOTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] 氏曰く
ume Current sshd doesn't handle actual size of struct sockaddr correctly,
ume and does copy it as long as just size of struct sockaddr. So, sshd
ume deesn't log hostname into
On Saturday, August 31, 2002, at 06:04 PM, Terry Lambert wrote:
David O'Brien wrote:
Because rather than leaving it alone for a while, they are already
planning a 3.3. 8-).
And comments on this list to that effect.
I don't follow. The GCC group branches previous to a release and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
I guess the fear is that, if they are willing to destroy binary
compatability between point releases, with another point release
in the wings, it would be risky to pick the point release one
behind to standardise upon.
There will hopefully always be
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
I think we're on our way to stabilizing -CURRENT enough for a DP2
soon. I would sit and wait it out just a tad longer. :-)
A 5.0 DP2 branch was created just yesterday. So how ever good
Hello,
I had freeze at boot problem with my laptop and -CURRENT:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=42262
I found the solution: setting hw.pci.enable_io_modes to 0.
So I have a question: that sysctl has to be =1 by default? I mean if I
have that issue with it and my laptop, maybe I'll
--
Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:41:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was the general consensus that the 3.1 version of
the compiler was broken, and generated bad code, and that the 3.2
compiler had a lot of these problems corrected, but destroyed
binary compatability with 3.1.
It is *that* simple.
yep.
Rather than bitch that 3.1.1 sucks; we should thanking the GCC
Steering
Committee that after much thought they were willing to take the
vendors'
needs into account. I am not sure FreeBSD would have done the same.
I never said it sucked... I think the ABI
* David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-01 14:31]:
[snip]
It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going
to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for
FreeBSD to not be pulling a RedHat if they shipped a beta and
called it 3.3) , might be GCC
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
3.3.0 will be released before FreeBSD 5.1. It is my advice to
FreeBSD'ville that we go with a GCC 3.3 snapshot for FBSD 5.0 and a GCC
3.3.0 release for FBSD 5.1. That way we can get the new features of 3.3
into our 5.x branch. AND get bug fixes by
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
unexpected delays, so please be patient.
Please respond immediately if you feel
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 11:30:32PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote:
I've seen other reports of similar crashes on the list. What version of
imgact_elf.c is this?
$FreeBSD: src/sys/kern/imgact_elf.c,v 1.111 2002/06/02 20:05:54 schweikh Exp $
Kris
msg42383/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
Do we have any plans to import bind 9.x into the base
system before the 5.0 release date. AFAIK it should break
some tools that rely on the resolver library. Is that correct?
I could not find any previous thread about this on both
current and hackers mailing list archives.
Thanks in
Core available on request.
Kris
panic: ffs_clusteralloc: map mismatch
panic messages:
---
panic: ffs_clusteralloc: map mismatch
Uptime: 23m31s
Dumping 510 MB
ata0: resetting devices ..
done
16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 160 176 192 208 224 240 256 272 288 304 320 336 352 368
384 400 416 432
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be
fixed in 3.2.
GCC 3.2
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2 fixes a bug
that changes the API so it couldn't be
Well, actually, I *wasn't* asking for an upgrade.
From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
working productively for around a month due to various this thats and
the others). If that's what
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:50:50PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't
recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
To
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
working productively for around a month due to various this thats and
Hi,
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which fixes
GCC 3.2.1-pre is now in the tree. Please let me know if you see any
problems recompiling your world/kernel.
Remember to recompile your C++ ports. GCC 3.2 is not binary compatible
with 3.1.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
it now than later, when people will actually expect it to work.
I also dislike the apparent
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
working productively
I should note that I'm raising more of a flag than normal.
This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
Go back to sleep.
On
I personally always get a bit more concerned about compiler upgrades. I
can and do protect myself from errant /usr/src/sys changes, but
everthing else is cvsup based for me, so buildworlds really do need to
work well for me.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:00:34PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
it now than later, when
Matthew Jacob wrote:
This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
Go back to sleep.
Would you rather that we ship with a
These arguments are all quite familiar- I'm not really moved one way or
the other.
The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a
product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd
assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change.
I'm *not* arguing
Matthew Jacob wrote:
The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a
product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd
assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change.
re@ have been practically begging for it.
I'm *not* arguing against the
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:23:58PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
This is the same as using RELENG_4_6 (ie, 4.6-SECURE) in something. We
get bug fixes (that must work on *all* supported GCC arches). The risk
is _well_ mitigated.
Why is everyone second guessing Kan on this import??? It will
Great news. Hopefully this means we'll actually be able to ship 5.0 with
a working KDE, since the 3.1 gcc we were running with had compiler
optimization problems with the gif code. And, as previously discussed,
this was a big checkbox item for getting 5.0 in decent shape for the
release.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Blapp wrote:
Hi,
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Marcus Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
a patch, and update the Mozilla people.
Joe
Why would that change? I
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Marcus Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
a patch, and update the
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:51:52PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
- Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out.
How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today??
archaic does apply however.
Why the fsck can't people come up to
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:58:46PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
GCC 3.2.1-pre is now in the tree. Please let me know if you see any
problems recompiling your world/kernel.
I have completed a world and kernel, just upgrading all my ports with
portupgrade -a -f now, we'll see how that goes.
Totally off-topic for this thread, sorry.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:58:54PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
Note: I have tried bringing to
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:33:05PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
Remember to recompile your C++ ports. GCC 3.2 is not binary compatible
with 3.1.
If this works out would it be a good idea to get this new gcc version
on the port build clusters for -current so we can get to work on
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:46:18PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:33:05PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
Remember to recompile your C++ ports. GCC 3.2 is not binary compatible
with 3.1.
If this works out would it be a good idea to get this new gcc version
Matthew Jacob wrote:
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
- Switch in
Matthew Jacob wrote:
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
experience.
I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
--
David W. Chapman Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. www.inethouston.net
[EMAIL
Hey lets find a way to keep this goddamned thread going..
huh can we... yeah... please... I love hitting delete!!!
Keep it up and we'll be as cool as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... /sarcasm
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:12 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote:
Matthew Jacob wrote:
Yes, as best as I
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:14 PM, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
experience.
I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
I wouldn't call it trolling but I
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
[...]
Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
experience.
Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I certainly didn't mean
it in the context of what's going on in other mailing lists, and it
I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made that
DP2 just got a tag, but even a DP1 tag would do.
What should that tag
On 2002-09-01 18:43 +, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote:
I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made that
DP2 just got a
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:43:51PM -0700, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote:
I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made that
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:43:51PM -0700, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote:
I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made that
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big
This showed up a few days ago; a tool-dependency problem
in a cross-build.
I build current under stable since this (acpi-only) system
won't yet boot current (mostly appears to be the problem with
TI pcic/cardbus chip interrupt routing)
The build of aicasm in the kernel mkdep works right; that
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:51:19PM -0700, Pete Carah wrote:
This showed up a few days ago; a tool-dependency problem
in a cross-build.
I build current under stable since this (acpi-only) system
won't yet boot current (mostly appears to be the problem with
TI pcic/cardbus chip interrupt
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which
aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
some boot blocks), but is broken in gcc3 for at least compile-time
assignments to long longs and shifts of long longs by a non-constant
amount:
%%%
$ cat z.c
long long x = 0;
int y;
foo()
{
x = x y;
}
$ cc -O -S
David O'Brien wrote:
It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going
to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for
FreeBSD to not be pulling a RedHat if they shipped a beta and
called it 3.3) , might be GCC 3.2, and was currently down-rev
from there.
Lamont Granquist wrote:
5.0 will be a beta and will not be ready for production use right?
No. But no one will use it anyway, because no one trusts a .0
version of anything.
I'm not sure exactly how FreeBSD would be pulling a redhat by putting in
a development snapshot if the 5.0 release
Thank you.
Let's move on.
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Scott Long wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
[...]
Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
experience.
Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I certainly didn't
67 matches
Mail list logo
