Re: -CURRENT compilation time

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:43:06 +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > On 06/09/2021 09:08, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > Compiling C++ seems > > extremely CPU heavy and this is made worse by the fact LLVM is built > > twice (once for build/cross tools, once for the actual world). > > Note that you need to

-CURRENT compilation time

Hey, I want to build -CURRENT again from sources. It's been a long time since I hadn't done that. I'm shocked by the compilation time. I started the whole thing on Friday night and Monday morning it's still in stage 4.2 (building libraries). Through occasional glancing at the screen over the

Re: -CURRENT compilation time

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 10:10, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > Hey, > > I want to build -CURRENT again from sources. It's been a long time > since I hadn't done that. I'm shocked by the compilation time. > > I started the whole thing on Friday night and Monday morning it's > still in stage 4.2 (building

Re: -CURRENT compilation time

On 06/09/2021 09:08, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: Compiling C++ seems extremely CPU heavy and this is made worse by the fact LLVM is built twice (once for build/cross tools, once for the actual world). Note that you need to build LLVM twice only if you are actively debugging LLVM reproduceable

wlan0 functional for me with n249159-bb61ccd530b (was: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0)

On 05/09/2021 14:36, David Wolfskill wrote: a reality check would almost certainly be helpful. :-) No problem here; . n248984-08b9cc316a3 (2021-08-28) upgraded to n249159-bb61ccd530b (2021-09-05),

Re: -CURRENT compilation time

Jeremie, a few observations (from the POV of someone who builds current ~ once a month) On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 10:09 AM Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > Hey, > > I want to build -CURRENT again from sources. It's been a long time > since I hadn't done that. I'm shocked by the compilation time. > > I

Re: -CURRENT compilation time

On 06/09/21 10:08, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: Hey, I want to build -CURRENT again from sources. It's been a long time since I hadn't done that. I'm shocked by the compilation time. I started the whole thing on Friday night and Monday morning it's still in stage 4.2 (building libraries). Through

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

I changed mine to be the same as yours. I can connect. (I use iwn(4) and ath(4) here.) Do you reboot every time you test or simply this? service netif stop wlan0 service netif start wlan0 If simply above, does a reboot have it work again? The reason I ask is, I discovered,

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

In message , Idwer Vollering writes: > Op ma 6 sep. 2021 om 07:53 schreef Cy Schubert : > > > > In message <2838567.hhqauc6...@sigill.theweb.org.ua>, "Oleg V. Nauman" > > writes: > > > On 2021 M09 5, Sun 15:52:50 EEST David Wolfskill wrote: > > > > Sorry I hadn't noticed this yesterday (so I

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

There's no core dump in /, wpa_supplicant connects to 802.11b/g/n (there's no way to lock this, instead of having a mix of standards) on 2,4GHz. /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf: network={ ssid="some ssid" scan_ssid=1 key_mgmt=WPA-PSK psk="some key" } Op ma 6 sep. 2021 om 15:23 schreef Cy Schubert : > >

Re: EFI/loader show garbage in console when set to some resolution in loader.conf

> On 6. Sep 2021, at 19:44, Karel Gardas wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm attempting to set EFI console resolution in loader to 1920x1920. This is > working fine on all 3 tested* combinations when interrupting loader with '3' > key and then > issueing 'gop set 11' command and then 'boot' command.

Install to ZFS root is using device names hence failing when device tree is changed.

Hello, just installed 14-current snapshot from 2.9. on uefi amd64 machine. Installed from USB memstick which was detected as da0 into the ssd hanging on usb3 in external enclosure which was detected as da1. ZFS root pool is then using /dev/da1p3 as swap and /dev/da1p1 as /boot/efi and

Re: BUG in libm's powf

Hi! > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote: > > could you turn to test program into an AFT test to prevent further > > regressions? > > I cannot tell if you are addressing Mark or me. > For me, I know nothing about ATF. man 7 atf has more details. -- p...@opsec.eu

EFI/loader show garbage in console when set to some resolution in loader.conf

Hello, I'm attempting to set EFI console resolution in loader to 1920x1920. This is working fine on all 3 tested* combinations when interrupting loader with '3' key and then issueing 'gop set 11' command and then 'boot' command. However I'd like to make that permanent and here issue comes.

Re: PAM module for loading ZFS keys on login

Honestly, I think the best approach to this is the autounmountd unload keys thing. There's just too many ways the sessions thing can go wrong. The autounmountd solution gets the job done, and it tolerates possible failures better than anything else I can think of, barring some kind of major

Re: BUG in libm's powf

Hi I've opened a Phab ticket for this. I hope that's OK? https://reviews.freebsd.org/D31865 M > On 6 Sep 2021, at 16:28, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > Paul Zimmermann has identified a bug in Openlibm's powf(), > which is identical to FreeBSD's libm. Both derived from > fdlibm.

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

On 2021 M09 6, Mon 20:31:33 EEST Cy Schubert wrote: > One last favour to ask, can you try this with the wpa_supplicant-devel > port, please? I'm trying to narrow down if this is related to the options > in usr.sbin/wpa/Makefile.inc or an upstream problem. If this behaves the > same using

Re: EFI/loader show garbage in console when set to some resolution in loader.conf

On 9/6/21 6:59 PM, Toomas Soome wrote: On 6. Sep 2021, at 19:44, Karel Gardas > wrote: Hello, I'm attempting to set EFI console resolution in loader to 1920x1920. This is working fine on all 3 tested* combinations when interrupting loader with '3' key and then

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

One last favour to ask, can you try this with the wpa_supplicant-devel port, please? I'm trying to narrow down if this is related to the options in usr.sbin/wpa/Makefile.inc or an upstream problem. If this behaves the same using wpa_supplicant-devel, this tells me to look at the code instead

Re: BUG in libm's powf

Fine with me. I don't have a phabricator account and bugzilla reports seems to get lost in the ether. -- steve On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 06:45:11PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: > Hi > > I've opened a Phab ticket for this. I hope that's OK? > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D31865 > > M > > > On 6

Re: BUG in libm's powf

Thanks! And it's committed! M > On 6 Sep 2021, at 18:53, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > Fine with me. I don't have a phabricator account and > bugzilla reports seems to get lost in the ether. > > -- > steve > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 06:45:11PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: >> Hi >> >> I've

Re: BUG in libm's powf

No, thank you for the quick response. Of course, a one character diff might be easier to review. :-) -- steve On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 06:55:07PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: > Thanks! > > And it's committed! > > M > > > On 6 Sep 2021, at 18:53, Steve Kargl > > wrote: > > > > Fine with me.

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

In message <2780735.ssxfcku...@sigill.theweb.org.ua>, "Oleg V. Nauman" writes: > On 2021 M09 6, Mon 20:31:33 EEST Cy Schubert wrote: > > One last favour to ask, can you try this with the wpa_supplicant-devel > > port, please? I'm trying to narrow down if this is related to the options > > in

Re: -CURRENT compilation time

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 11:44, David Chisnall wrote: > > On 06/09/2021 09:08, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > Compiling C++ seems > > extremely CPU heavy and this is made worse by the fact LLVM is built > > twice (once for build/cross tools, once for the actual world). > > Note that you need to build

Re: BUG in libm's powf

On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote: > could you turn to test program into an AFT test to prevent further > regressions? > > —Gordon > I cannot tell if you are addressing Mark or me. For me, I know nothing about ATF. I do, however, suspect that this won't regress

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

Op ma 6 sep. 2021 om 07:53 schreef Cy Schubert : > > In message <2838567.hhqauc6...@sigill.theweb.org.ua>, "Oleg V. Nauman" > writes: > > On 2021 M09 5, Sun 15:52:50 EEST David Wolfskill wrote: > > > Sorry I hadn't noticed this yesterday (so I could have repported it > > > then), but after

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

On 2021 M09 6, Mon 18:41:13 EEST Cy Schubert wrote: > I changed mine to be the same as yours. I can connect. (I use iwn(4) and > ath(4) here.) a ) regular reboot - wlan can not associate b ) service netif restart - wlan can not associate c ) service netif stop wlan0 ; service netif start wlan0

Install to ZFS root is using device names hence failing when device tree is changed.

Hello, just installed 14-current snapshot from 2.9. on uefi amd64 machine. Installed from USB memstick which was detected as da0 into the ssd hanging on usb3 in external enclosure which was detected as da1. ZFS root pool is then using /dev/da1p3 as swap and /dev/da1p1 as /boot/efi and

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

On 2021 M09 6, Mon 16:23:21 EEST Cy Schubert wrote: > In message om> > > , Idwer Vollering writes: > > Op ma 6 sep. 2021 om 07:53 schreef Cy Schubert : > > > In message <2838567.hhqauc6...@sigill.theweb.org.ua>, "Oleg V. Nauman" > > > > > > writes: > > > > On 2021 M09 5, Sun 15:52:50 EEST

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

On 2021 M09 6, Mon 08:50:21 EEST Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <2838567.hhqauc6...@sigill.theweb.org.ua>, "Oleg V. Nauman" > > writes: > > On 2021 M09 5, Sun 15:52:50 EEST David Wolfskill wrote: > > > Sorry I hadn't noticed this yesterday (so I could have repported it > > > then), but after

BUG in libm's powf

Paul Zimmermann has identified a bug in Openlibm's powf(), which is identical to FreeBSD's libm. Both derived from fdlibm. https://github.com/JuliaMath/openlibm/issues/212. Consider % cat h.c #include #include int main(void) { float x, y, z; x = 0x1.ecp-1F; y = -0x1.02p+27F;

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

In message <86tuix4cys@shiori.com.br>, Filipe da Silva Santos writes: > --=-=-= > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > I'll have more questions later (need to start working on another job) but= > =20 > > I'd like to learn more about your configuration to

Re: PAM module for loading ZFS keys on login

I looked at the upstream one too. Mine is simple because I modified libzfs to be able to take the key directly in the key location override argument. If you look at my patch, it adds a "direct" key location, which basically works like "direct:keydata", where "keydata" is your key. In the case

Re: BUG in libm's powf

On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 10:40:21PM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote: > > > could you turn to test program into an AFT test to prevent further > > > regressions? > > > > I cannot tell if you are addressing Mark or me. > > For

Re: wlan0 no longer functional after n249128-a0c64a443e4c -> n249146-cb5c07649aa0

> I'll have more questions later (need to start working on another job) but > I'd like to learn more about your configuration to understand why it works > at boot for myself and phlip@ and not for you and the others here on > -current who have experienced the same issue. Understanding what

Re: BUG in libm's powf

Hi! > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote: > > > > could you turn to test program into an AFT test to prevent further > > > > regressions? > > > > > > I cannot tell if you are addressing Mark or me. > > > For me, I know nothing about ATF. > > > > man 7 atf > >