On 2011-02-16 21:00, Dimitry Andric wrote:
So I plan to merge the binutils-2.17 project branch to head this
weekend, if there are no further objections. If you have found a
showstopper bug, please let me know ASAP. :)
Okay, binutils 2.17.50 has now been merged to head in r218822. If you
On 2011-02-19 15:35, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Okay, binutils 2.17.50 has now been merged to head in r218822. If you
compile kernels by hand, make sure to first run make buildworld, or at
least make kernel-toolchain, to get a new ld in /usr/obj. Otherwise,
linking your kernel might fail.
Note,
On 2011-01-07 21:57, Dimitry Andric wrote:
For some time, I have been working on importing a newer version of
binutils into -current. This updates our quite ancient 2.15 version to
the last version available under GPLv2, 2.17.50.
The binutils 2.17 project branch has been cooking for quite
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 09:57:47PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
This is slightly OT. I get this error on ia64 which seems to be
binutils related (still 2.15). I just thought if it is, then it
might have an effect on 2.17 as well.
The error seems to be ia64 specific. On amd64 and sparc64
Erik Cederstrand píše v ne 09. 01. 2011 v 00:10 +0100:
I was pretty sure I couldn't improve anything with 5 minutes of
thinking. I'm glad the most obvious things have already been done, and
I'm sure you and others have put a lot of effort into this. My
question was more what, if anything, can
On 2011-01-07 22:54, Ade Lovett wrote:
Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that affect
7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a bunch of
other infrastructure stuff. Not to mention the impending 7- and 8-
RELEASEs.
I understand, and there will probably
On 2011-01-08 01:54, Anonymous wrote:
Looks like lang/sbcl doesn't like new ld(1), here on amd64.
Same error when building using devel/binutils. Can you reproduce?
...
//doing warm init - compilation phase
This is SBCL 1.0.43, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
More information
Hello Pav,
Den 08/01/2011 kl. 20.34 skrev Pav Lucistnik:
Package cluster is quite clever, akshully, and since this is OT here,
just terse comments
Sorry, replied to a bad message... redirecting to current@
1. adding SSD disks
irrelevant because of bullet 2.
2. source and destination
On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
Hello Pav,
Den 08/01/2011 kl. 20.34 skrev Pav Lucistnik:
Package cluster is quite clever, akshully, and since this is OT here,
just terse comments
Sorry, replied to a bad message... redirecting to current@
1. adding SSD disks
Hi all,
For some time, I have been working on importing a newer version of
binutils into -current. This updates our quite ancient 2.15 version to
the last version available under GPLv2, 2.17.50. (Special thanks to
Nathan Whitehorn for his valuable feedback.)
As far as I know, all issues
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Dimitry Andric d...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi all,
For some time, I have been working on importing a newer version of
binutils into -current. This updates our quite ancient 2.15 version to
the last version available under GPLv2, 2.17.50. (Special thanks to
On 01/07/2011 12:57, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Please report any problems with either the base system, or ports that
come up as a result of this binutils update.
This is much appreciated work of course, but I'm wondering if you've
requested an experimental ports run with the change? It would be
On 2011-01-07 22:22, Doug Barton wrote:
This is much appreciated work of course, but I'm wondering if you've
requested an experimental ports run with the change? It would be good to
know how much damage to expect before the change gets committed.
Yes, I submitted an exp-run request Nov 15,
On 2011-01-07 22:21, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
http://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/binutils-2.17/
all of the Text files are seen as Binary files by Firefox in Linux
Try http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/projects/binutils-2.17/ instead.
For checking out the source tree, please use a
On 01/07/2011 13:29, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2011-01-07 22:22, Doug Barton wrote:
This is much appreciated work of course, but I'm wondering if you've
requested an experimental ports run with the change? It would be good to
know how much damage to expect before the change gets committed.
On Jan 07, 2011, at 15:41 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 01/07/2011 13:29, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Yes, I submitted an exp-run request Nov 15, 2010:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=152268
Unfortunately, there has been little or no interest.
Fair enough, that sounds to me like portmgr
On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote:
On Jan 07, 2011, at 15:41 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 01/07/2011 13:29, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Yes, I submitted an exp-run request Nov 15, 2010:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=152268 Unfortunately,
there has been little or no interest.
Fair
Dimitry Andric d...@freebsd.org writes:
[...]
Please report any problems with either the base system, or ports that
come up as a result of this binutils update.
Looks like lang/sbcl doesn't like new ld(1), here on amd64.
Same error when building using devel/binutils. Can you reproduce?
$
On Jan 07, 2011, at 17:37 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote:
Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that
affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a
bunch of other infrastructure stuff. Not to mention the impending 7-
and
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
On Jan 07, 2011, at 17:37 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote:
Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that
affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a
bunch of other
I'm happy to have a discussion about this topic either publicly, or
privately, your choice. Since your message went to -current@, that's
where my reply is headed. I've also cc'ed ports@ since the topic is
relevant there too.
Meanwhile, I've snipped some of what you wrote to focus on the
21 matches
Mail list logo
