On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
===
SUMMARY
===
World
***didn't compile***
3 Warnings
Kernel LINT
compiled
147 Warnings
LINT has been broken for a long time by depenencies on optional
On Thursday, 27 April 2000 at 22:04:19 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
This looks a lot better.
Greg
===
SUMMARY
===
World
***didn't compile***
3 Warnings
Kernel LINT
compiled
147 Warnings
Kernel
===
SUMMARY
===
World
***didn't compile***
3 Warnings
Kernel LINT
compiled
147 Warnings
Kernel GENERIC
compiled
58 Warnings
Kernel GENERIC98
***didn't compile***
63
===
SUMMARY
===
World
compiled
637 Warnings
45 Errors
Kernel LINT
compiled
149 Warnings
0 Errors
Kernel GENERIC
compiled
59 Warnings
0 Errors
Kernel GENERIC98
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrzej Bialecki
writes:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
===
SUMMARY
===
[27kB long list of errors deleted..]
I thought that the final conclusion was to have some other mailing
The summary may have saved lots of net time.
I did not cvsup today because of the summary.
tomdean
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
===
SUMMARY
===
World
compiled
637 Warnings
45 Errors
Kernel LINT
compiled
149 Warnings
0 Errors
Kernel GENERIC
compiled
59 Warnings
0 Errors
Kernel GENERIC98
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Somers writes:
===
SUMMARY
===
World
compiled
637 Warnings
45 Errors
Kernel LINT
compiled
149 Warnings
0 Errors
Kernel GENERIC
compiled
59
On Tuesday, 25 April 2000 at 18:09:00 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrzej
Bialecki writes:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
===
SUMMARY
===
[27kB long list of errors deleted..]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writes:
It isn't something specific to Poul's system. I've recreated it here
as well. I've also tracked it down to the -fno-builtin that is in
LINT, but not in GENERIC. Now, to think about what to do about it...
It is to be left there to catch people
IMHO, it's not such a bad idea. freebsd-current _is_ the place to
report problems with -current, why can't the report be produced by a
daemon?
Becuase it's chunky and regular enough that I don't see why we
also can't just create a new notification service for it.
Think a bit bigger-picture
that having detailed
information (at the end) is a real issue (though it might be for
someove paying by the byte).
I agree.
Comments:
- I hope it has a well-defined subject so it can be easily recognized.
"FreeBSD Build status"
- I presume it's built using the default make.conf.
Yes.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
IMHO, it's not such a bad idea. freebsd-current _is_ the place to
report problems with -current, why can't the report be produced by a
daemon?
Becuase it's chunky and regular enough that I don't see why we
also can't just create a new
Comments:
- I hope it has a well-defined subject so it can be easily recognized.
"FreeBSD Build status"
Procmail is your friend... A lot of the list message I receive get
bounced to a lower-priority-that-I-have-to-read-these folder, but anything
with "HEADS-UP"(?) get
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2000-Apr-18 08:07:45 +1000, "Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the lists being tedious and long: I've sorted the content by
relevance, and it was my hope that over time they would shrink to
zero if we annoyed people enough with
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Jeremy write
s:
IMHO, it's not such a bad idea. freebsd-current _is_ the place to
report problems with -current, why can't the report be produced by a
daemon? All the MUA's I've ever used allowed me to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nar
vi writes:
The summary of summaries would roughly look like this:
Subject: -current build report
Success: world, generic
Fail: lint
The First part of the email is a summary just like that.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nar
vi writes:
The summary of summaries would roughly look like this:
Subject: -current build report
Success: world, generic
Fail: lint
The First part of the email is a summary just like
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nar
vi writes:
The summary of summaries would roughly look like this:
Subject: -current build report
Success: world, generic
Fail: lint
The First part of the email is a summary just like that.
See what Boris Popov writes on the issue. I
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 08:38:47AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
IMHO, it's not such a bad idea. freebsd-current _is_ the place to
report problems with -current, why can't the report be produced by a
daemon?
Becuase it's
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:48:11AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Listen, we are talking about an email which is shorter than the
list of open PRs, and if people actually *DO* something about it
it will get shorter fast
The only reason it is a long report right now is that people are
Forwarded Message
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:09:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FreeBSD build status
From: Build-o-matic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
---
SUMMARY
---
World
compiled
I have a machine which isn't doing much right now, so I have decided
to set it up as an automatic "FreeBSD Build checker".
Welcome to the current.freebsd.org game. :)
Once per day the machine cvsups, checks out a virgin source tree,
tries to build GENERIC, GENERIC98, LINT and world. If
Hi,
I have a patch against these warnings. They are the result of a function
being called with a pointer to a function rather than a string...
/otte/src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_int/../../../../contrib/gcc/c-common.c:1655:
warning: passing arg 1 of `warning' from incompatible pointer type
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
That said, I've also done a singularly bad job of actually letting
people know that build-reports even exists so I wouldn't expect you or
anyone else (except maybe Bill Paul) to have known about it. It's
just an alias on hub.freebsd.org
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: awi.o(.text+0x3b4): undefined reference to `memcmp'
: awi.o(.text+0x3cf): undefined reference to `memset'
What I want to know is why I don't get these with the GENERIC + awi
config file I have :-(
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: awi.o(.text+0x3b4): undefined reference to `memcmp'
: awi.o(.text+0x3cf): undefined reference to `memset'
What I want to know is why I don't get these with the GENERIC + awi
config file I
But does this also check the kernels ? It was my understanding that
it only did world/release ?
It only does the world/release (and it's the chrooted make release
"world build" which is reported on, not the host system's BTW) but
could easily add a kernel build just for the benefit of the
: awi.o(.text+0x3b4): undefined reference to `memcmp'
: awi.o(.text+0x3cf): undefined reference to `memset'
What I want to know is why I don't get these with the GENERIC + awi
config file I have :-(
Are you compiling with optimization turned on? I believe mem* are
inlined if optimization
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nate Williams writes:
: Are you compiling with optimization turned on? I believe mem* are
: inlined if optimization is enabled.
Don't think so. Both build -O.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of
: Are you compiling with optimization turned on? I believe mem* are
: inlined if optimization is enabled.
Don't think so. Both build -O.
Poul's build may not have optimization turned on, since it's controlled
by /etc/make.conf.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nate Williams writes:
: : Are you compiling with optimization turned on? I believe mem* are
: : inlined if optimization is enabled.
:
: Don't think so. Both build -O.
:
: Poul's build may not have optimization turned on, since it's controlled
: by
: : Are you compiling with optimization turned on? I believe mem* are
: : inlined if optimization is enabled.
:
: Don't think so. Both build -O.
:
: Poul's build may not have optimization turned on, since it's controlled
: by /etc/make.conf.
It isn't something specific to Poul's
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nate Williams writes:
: I thought that the use of mem* and friends violated KNF.
They do, iirc. However, this driver tries to be maximally portable
and choses to use the NetBSD convention. I've added compat code so
that differences between the two drivers can be
LINT is now building again. I went ahead and fixed the vtdriver not
defined problem by removing it from isa_comapt.h.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 11:17:15PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Once per day the machine cvsups, checks out a virgin source tree,
tries to build GENERIC, GENERIC98, LINT and world. If any of these
builds fail it will send a report like this.
On Sundays the report will always be sent.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 05:51:35PM -0400, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
I have a patch against these warnings. They are the result of a function
being called with a pointer to a function rather than a string...
...snip...
Should I just send a PR ?
You should send a PR to the GCC developers, not
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
But does this also check the kernels ? It was my understanding that
it only did world/release ?
It only does the world/release (and it's the chrooted make release
"world build" which is reported on, not the host system's BTW) but
could easily add a kernel
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 01:45:57PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
Should I just send a PR ?
No, there is already a PR for this (15549).
Doh! The problem is in our code, not the FSF code. Fixed.
--
-- David([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On 2000-Apr-18 08:07:45 +1000, "Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the lists being tedious and long: I've sorted the content by
relevance, and it was my hope that over time they would shrink to
zero if we annoyed people enough with them.
I think that's too much annoyance,
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 03:25:35PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2000-Apr-18 08:07:45 +1000, "Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the lists being tedious and long: I've sorted the content by
relevance, and it was my hope that over time they would shrink to
zero if we annoyed
41 matches
Mail list logo