On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> --
>> commit 160b4b922b6
>> Author: Konstantin Belousov
>> Date: Sat Oct 23 00:17:21 2021
>>
>> Add real sched.h
>>
>> It is required by IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 AKA
Hi everyone,
just a heads-up that...
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I should have gcc8-devel updated in the next 24 hours, gcc7-devel
> and gcc6-devel over the week as new snapshots are released.
:
> Once the respective -devel ports are updated, I'll
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Pushed on all active branches, 8/7/6.
Saw that, thank you. Very well done, Andreas!
I should have gcc8-devel updated in the next 24 hours, gcc7-devel
and gcc6-devel over the week as new snapshots are released.
> If you could do the gcc* branches,
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> Please commit it to the ports tree as well, because there are reports
> that ftp/curl can trigger the problem.
What Andreas and me usually are doing is that he commits fixes
upstream (from HEAD down to release branches), I pick them up when
updating
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Do we, FreeBSD'ers, want to have gcc unwind support on older than
> FreeBSD 9.3 releases? I think the gcc folks do not care, but we are the
> ones who might have an need for such a support?
> @Gerald, do you have an opinion?
Yes. No. :-)
Those
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Great! We already worked around the issue by disabling
> stack-protector-strong for gcc48 though.
Yep - it still felt like the right thing to also address this in the port.
> What looks somewhat strange to me is that lang/gcc is an independent
> port
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Justin Hibbits wrote:
> As Antoine mentioned, the problem is that lang/gcc does not have this
> patch. USE_GCC uses lang/gcc, not lang/gcc48. So lang/gcc needs to
> be updated.
I have (finally) managed to steal the team, kicked off testing,
and plan on committing the
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, Claude Buisson wrote:
Perhaps you could have a look at the fact that lang/gcc is at 4.6.3,
and lang/gcc46 is no more a snapshot but a true release 4.6.4.
I am aware of that. Owed to a strongly voiced desire by users,
I am triggering a rebuild of lang/gcc as rarely as
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on gcc 4.2.1 can't be
compiled with lang/gcc. I checked this once and the number of ports
that require strictly gcc 4.2.1 was bigger for me then number of
ports that can't be compiled with clang but
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
lang/gcc42 is on the list of ports that have USE_GCC=any. So you would
need to fix it first to be able to compile it with clang 3.3 from base.
I don't think so. :-)
You can install lang/gcc which builds just fine with clang, and
then use lang/gcc
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
A possible hack could be to add a check for USE_GCC=any to behave like
a USE_GCC=yes on HEAD on the affected platforms. This pulls in lang/gcc
from ports for a lot of people on HEAD I suppose.
I am planning to work on this a bit more once the two
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Warner Losh wrote:
If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler'
toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why
don't we just push clang out to a port, and be done with it?
This is a stupid idea. It kills the tightly integrated
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with
USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? This could allow
the clang switch to proceed. Hopefully, waiting for GCC to compile just
to install some tiny port will be
for the FreeBSD version? I had understood
that simply reading from the device should work on 4.x, old 5.x, and
-CURRENT. Søren, Kris?
Gerald
--
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
I'm looking at this and I think that my interpretation is that
WINE, under FreeBSD, blindly allocates LDT entries starting at location 17,
without looking to see if they are in use already..
Do you think that's a bug in Wine, or just a Linuxism? In
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
As for source compatibility, just use the DBREG_DRX macro, which exists
in both -STABLE and -CURRENT (it was merged into -STABLE two years ago).
It's too bad source compatibility hasn't been preserved.
Indeed.
Argument d is not properly
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
Fine, but if included as is in Wine because, it will break
compatibility with Net/OpenBSD because DBREG_DRX is a FreeBSDism...
that's why I surrounded my patch with a #ifdef DBREG_DRX (which
seems cleaner than a #ifdef __FreeBSD__).
Sheesh.
PHK, now
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Krzysztof [iso-8859-2] Jêdruczyk wrote:
Yesterday I tried to upgrade wine on my FreeBSD-current box. It didn't
compile until I changed following in server/context_i386.c (looks like
this is because of commit of 1.28 version of src/sys/i386/include/reg.h)
Thanks for the
This *is* a regression (even if it may be hard to fix on the release
branch), so I'm raising it's priority.
Gerald
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Szilveszter Adam wrote:
Also, since 2.96 has not even been released yet, I assume the
maintainer (bruce, AFAIK) just makes sure that it builds and compiles
stuff OK and so by the time 5.0 will be released and hopefully 2.96
too, we just have to push the button and it will
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Victor A. Salaman wrote:
Anyways, after sending email to marcel and peter with the patches, I haven't
even received a reply. :-(
So therefore, I'm posting them here, in case anyone wants to commit
them at all. I feel 4.0 shouldn't go out with a known broken linux
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Three weeks ago, I, and a few other INN administrators, posted about
FreeBSD -STABLE's inability to run the newest INN code, due to MMAP() race
conditions...essentially, after X hours of run time, on a heavily loaded
INN server, the whole thing
I'm only subscribed to freebsd-stable, so I missed the original thread,
but reading the lines below, a question arises:
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
Well, you already see a lot of the pure bug fixes being backported.
What you don't see in -stable are the bug fixes that also depend
23 matches
Mail list logo
