Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-04-05 Thread Mike Barcroft
Mike Barcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tinderbox FAQ: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~mike/tinderbox.html Sat Apr 5 03:38:00 EST 2003 U Makefile.inc1 cvs update: ignoring bin/dumplfs (CVS/Repository missing) cvs update: ignoring contrib/amd/conf/mount (CVS/Repository missing) cvs [update

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-03-30 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mike Barcroft wrote: stage 4: building everything.. -- === share/man/man9 make: don't know how to make bus_Activate_resource.9. Stop *** Error code 2 This looks like a single bit memory

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-03-29 Thread Peter Wemm
Mike Barcroft wrote: stage 4: building everything.. -- === share/man/man9 make: don't know how to make bus_Activate_resource.9. Stop *** Error code 2 This looks like a single bit memory error to me. Turn off bit 5 and a lowercase

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-03-29 Thread Jos Backus
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:02:53AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: Mike Barcroft wrote: stage 4: building everything.. -- === share/man/man9 make: don't know how to make bus_Activate_resource.9. Stop *** Error code 2 This looks

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-03-29 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jos Backus writes: On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:02:53AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: Mike Barcroft wrote: stage 4: building everything.. -- === share/man/man9 make: don't know how to make

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-03-29 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:18:48PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jos Backus writes: On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:02:53AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: Mike Barcroft wrote: stage 4: building everything..

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-03-29 Thread Terry Lambert
Jos Backus wrote: On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:02:53AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: Mike Barcroft wrote: stage 4: building everything.. -- === share/man/man9 make: don't know how to make bus_Activate_resource.9. Stop ***

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-03-03 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:16:39AM -0500, Mike Barcroft wrote: [...] -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Mon Mar 3 00:15:48 EST 2003 -- === hme make: don't know how to

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-02-27 Thread Doug Barton
I made the suggestion in another forum that we create subscription lists for these tinderbox messages so that those interested could see them, and those not interested would not need to filter them out. Is anyone else interested in doing it that way? Or is this a solution looking for a problem?

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-02-27 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I made the suggestion in another forum that we create subscription lists for these tinderbox messages so that those interested could see them, and those not interested would not need to filter them out. Is anyone else interested in doing it that way?

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-02-27 Thread Jens Rehsack
David Schultz wrote: Thus spake Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I made the suggestion in another forum that we create subscription lists for these tinderbox messages so that those interested could see them, and those not interested would not need to filter them out. Is anyone else interested in

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-01-08 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:25:12PM +, Mike Barcroft said words to the effect of; Tinderbox FAQ: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~mike/tinderbox.html -- Rebuilding the temporary build tree

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2003-01-08 Thread Mike Barcroft
Jake Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Apparently, On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:25:12PM +, Mike Barcroft said words to the effect of; -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Wed Jan 8 22:16:49 GMT 2003

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-29 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 03:21:22AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: === sbin/swapon cc1: warnings being treated as errors /tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/swapon/swapon.c: In function `swaplist': /tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/swapon/swapon.c:246: warning: field width is not type int (arg 3) Can someone

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-29 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 03:21:22AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: === sbin/swapon cc1: warnings being treated as errors /tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/swapon/swapon.c: In function `swaplist': /tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/swapon/swapon.c:246: warning:

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-29 Thread Craig Rodrigues
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:17:05PM -0800, David Schultz wrote: Thus spake Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 03:21:22AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: === sbin/swapon cc1: warnings being treated as errors /tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/swapon/swapon.c: In function

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-29 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Craig Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-12-29 ] [ Subjecte: Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure ] I'm not sure if your patch will solve the problem. The offending code is here: 240 if (lflag) { 241 char buf[32]; 242 snprintf

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-29 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Juli Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * De: Craig Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-12-29 ] [ Subjecte: Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure ] I'm not sure if your patch will solve the problem. The offending code is here: 240 if (lflag) { 241

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-29 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake David Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Right. The complaint is that hlen is 64 bits and the printf() expects the field length specifier to be an int. The same goes for getbsize(hlen, ...), so I'm not sure why the compiler didn't complain about a type mismatch. I guess it just coerced

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-19 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:36AM +, Mike Barcroft said words to the effect of; -- Rebuilding the temporary build tree -- stage 1: bootstrap tools

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-03 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:17:34PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: On 29-Nov-2002 Mike Barcroft wrote: Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:22:29AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: Fri Nov 29 03:15:00 GMT 2002 U lib/libpam/modules/pam_ksu/pam_ksu.c U

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-12-02 Thread John Baldwin
On 29-Nov-2002 Mike Barcroft wrote: Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:22:29AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: Fri Nov 29 03:15:00 GMT 2002 U lib/libpam/modules/pam_ksu/pam_ksu.c U release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/early-adopter/article.sgml Running test variables

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-29 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:22:29AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: Fri Nov 29 03:15:00 GMT 2002 U lib/libpam/modules/pam_ksu/pam_ksu.c U release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/early-adopter/article.sgml Running test variables PASS: Test variables detected no regression, output matches. Running test targets

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-21 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:20:41AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: Thu Nov 21 09:15:00 GMT 2002 ... U sys/kern/kern_thread.c U sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c U sys/modules/netgraph/bluetooth/bluetooth/Makefile U sys/modules/netgraph/bluetooth/bt3c/Makefile U sys/modules/netgraph/bluetooth/h4/Makefile U

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-21 Thread Mike Barcroft
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:20:41AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: Thu Nov 21 09:15:00 GMT 2002 ... U sys/kern/kern_thread.c U sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c U sys/modules/netgraph/bluetooth/bluetooth/Makefile U sys/modules/netgraph/bluetooth/bt3c/Makefile

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-17 Thread Julian Elischer
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Sun Nov 17 20:01:33 GMT 2002 -- === ipfilter

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-17 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:23:20PM -0800, Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Sun Nov 17 20:01:33 GMT 2002

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-17 Thread Clive Lin
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:46:55PM -0500, Jake Burkholder wrote: Apparently, On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:23:20PM -0800, Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: -- Kernel build

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-17 Thread Julian Elischer
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: Apparently, On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:23:20PM -0800, Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: -- Kernel build for

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-11-15 Thread Maxime Henrion
Mike Barcroft wrote: -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Fri Nov 15 14:04:21 GMT 2002 -- === ipfilter cc1: warnings being treated as errors

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-29 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:39:15PM -0400, Jake Burkholder wrote: You can also get various new machines on sun.com for around $1000 USD, IIRC a 500mhz blade 100 does a buildworld in around 2-3 hours. A $1000 (new) 500 MHz blade running GENERIC (minus WITNESS) builds world in a little under 3

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-29 Thread Andrew Gallatin
David O'Brien writes: On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:39:15PM -0400, Jake Burkholder wrote: You can also get various new machines on sun.com for around $1000 USD, IIRC a 500mhz blade 100 does a buildworld in around 2-3 hours. A $1000 (new) 500 MHz blade running GENERIC (minus WITNESS)

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-29 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:55:03AM -0500, Andrew Gallatin said words to the effect of; David O'Brien writes: On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:39:15PM -0400, Jake Burkholder wrote: You can also get various new machines on sun.com for around $1000 USD, IIRC a 500mhz

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-25 Thread Bruce Evans
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote: Mike Barcroft writes: stage 4: building everything.. -- === usr.sbin/pkg_install/info cc1: warnings being treated as errors

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Mike Barcroft writes: stage 4: building everything.. -- === usr.sbin/pkg_install/info cc1: warnings being treated as errors /tinderbox/sparc64/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/info/show.c: In function `show_size':

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-24 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 04:19:09PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin said words to the effect of; Mike Barcroft writes: stage 4: building everything.. -- === usr.sbin/pkg_install/info cc1: warnings being treated

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-24 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:39:15PM -0400, Jake Burkholder wrote: You can get a dual 300mhz ultra 60 on ebay for $900-1000 USD. Mine does a make -j 8 buildworld in just over 2 hours with some strategic stuff turned off in make.conf (profiled libs, objective c, fortran). I got my ultra 30 on

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-23 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Barcroft writes: === lib/libdisk cc1: warnings being treated as errors /tinderbox/sparc64/src/lib/libdisk/disk.c:428: warning: `assignToPartition' defined but not used I'm actively working on this stuff, but will be at customer sites today so if this gets in

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-10-11 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:25:29PM +, Mike Barcroft wrote: -- === gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libbfd In file included from /tinderbox/sparc64/src/contrib/binutils/bfd/elf32.c:22: ...

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-09-02 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:51:59 GMT Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus method.o: In function `use_thunk': method.o(.text+0x90c): undefined reference to `sparc_output_mi_thunk' Is this gcc 3.1 trying to build 3.2 or gcc 3.2 trying to build itself? Buildworld

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-09-02 Thread Mike Barcroft
Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:51:59 GMT Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus method.o: In function `use_thunk': method.o(.text+0x90c): undefined reference to `sparc_output_mi_thunk' Is this gcc 3.1 trying to build

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-09-02 Thread Alexander Kabaev
The complete transcript is available here: http://sparc64.style9.org/sparc64.log Which still does not answer my question. What GCC version is on this machine? -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-09-02 Thread Mike Barcroft
Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The complete transcript is available here: http://sparc64.style9.org/sparc64.log Which still does not answer my question. What GCC version is on this machine? Sorry, I thought your question was whether it was in the cross building stage or

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-09-02 Thread Peter Wemm
Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:51:59 GMT Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus method.o: In function `use_thunk': method.o(.text+0x90c): undefined reference to `sparc_output_mi_thunk' Is this gcc 3.1 trying to build 3.2 or gcc 3.2

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-09-02 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:21:12PM -0700, Peter Wemm said words to the effect of; Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:51:59 GMT Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus method.o: In function `use_thunk':

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-09-02 Thread Mike Barcroft
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:51:59 GMT Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus method.o: In function `use_thunk': method.o(.text+0x90c): undefined reference to `sparc_output_mi_thunk' Is

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-31 Thread Maxime Henrion
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: -- stage 4: building everything.. -- === sbin/fsck_ffs cc1: warnings being treated as errors

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-29 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Mike Barcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks. Do you want to increase the tinderbox to run twice a day? Sure, done. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-28 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Rebuilding the temporary build tree -- stage 1: bootstrap tools

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-28 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mike Barcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DES, there wasn't enough context on this to solve the problem. I don't really see what more you need. What's missing? The first line and cause of the subsequent errors: In file included from

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-28 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Mike Barcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mike Barcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DES, there wasn't enough context on this to solve the problem. I don't really see what more you need. What's missing? The first line and cause of the subsequent

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-28 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, looks like a bug in whereintheworld. It's not supposed to truncate error messages. I've hacked whereintheworld to print everything since the last '===' in case of an error, rather than just the last ten lines. If anyone is interested it's in

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-28 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, looks like a bug in whereintheworld. It's not supposed to truncate error messages. I've hacked whereintheworld to print everything since the last '===' in case of an error, rather than just

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-27 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Sat Jul 27 11:45:42 GMT 2002 -- === GENERIC

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-25 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- stage 4: building everything.. -- === usr.sbin/mrouted/testrsrr === usr.sbin/mtest === usr.sbin/mtree === usr.sbin/ndp

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-25 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does tinderbox run with a nonstandard WARNS setting? I did the cross build with these environment settings: des@freefall ~% cat tinderbox/make.conf CFLAGS = -O -pipe COPTFLAGS= -O -pipe NOPROFILE= true MAKE_KERBEROS4 = yes

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-25 Thread John Polstra
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does tinderbox run with a nonstandard WARNS setting? I did the cross build with these environment settings: des@freefall ~% cat tinderbox/make.conf CFLAGS = -O

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-24 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Wed Jul 24 11:45:59 GMT 2002 -- === GENERIC FYI: static unit limits for ppp are set:

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-24 Thread John Polstra
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Barcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Kernel build for GENERIC started on Wed Jul 24 11:45:59 GMT 2002

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-17 Thread Rob Hughes
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 05:54, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: === sbin/newfs /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/newfs/mkfs.c: In function `fsinit': /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/newfs/mkfs.c:711: structure has no member named `di_createtime' *** Error code 1 Stop in

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-17 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On (2002/07/17 06:49), Rob Hughes wrote: === sbin/newfs /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/newfs/mkfs.c: In function `fsinit': /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/sbin/newfs/mkfs.c:711: structure has no member named `di_createtime' *** Error code 1 Stop in

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-16 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- stage 4: building everything.. -- === gnu/lib/libobjc === gnu/lib/libg2c === gnu/usr.bin === gnu/usr.bin/bc ===

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-11 Thread Bruce Evans
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whoever fixes this, and however we agree to fix it, should also remember to close the bin/40382 PR. Comments on the attached, untested patch? Disable fatal warnings during bootstrap, build, and cross

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-11 Thread Mike Barcroft
Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: Comments on the attached, untested patch? Disable fatal warnings during bootstrap, build, and cross tools phase of world. The setting of NO_WERROR belongs in [BTX]MAKE if anywhere. This is already done

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2002-07-10 09:58 +, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: === bin/chmod cc1: warnings being treated as errors /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/bin/chmod/chmod.c: In function `main': /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/bin/chmod/chmod.c:174: warning: null format string How does this look for

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How does this look for fixing this warning? No, gcc should accept a NULL format string for err(3). It looks like __printf0like is broken. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2002-07-10 09:58 +, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: === bin/chmod cc1: warnings being treated as errors /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/bin/chmod/chmod.c: In function `main': /usr/home/des/tinderbox/sparc64/src/bin/chmod/chmod.c:174:

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2002-07-10 14:22 +, Matthew Dillon wrote: :Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : How does this look for fixing this warning? : :No, gcc should accept a NULL format string for err(3). It looks like :__printf0like is broken. Oops. I've already starting changing the calls

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : How does this look for fixing this warning? : :No, gcc should accept a NULL format string for err(3). It looks like :__printf0like is broken. : :DES :-- :Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oops. I've already starting changing the

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The main bug is that the warning is emitted. err(1, NULL) is perfectly valid (see err(4)). Apparently the sparc64 compiler is missing support for __printf0like. Strangely, my Alpha (July 3 -CURRENT) complains about this too, but my i386 (June 24

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Bruce Evans
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: The extra verboseness is fine, and I was almost finished posting a note that mentioned it. But I didn't thinking that the __printf0like bugs will never be fixed if we hide them by patching chmod. It was fixed more than a month ago: % RCS file:

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread W Gerald Hicks
On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 05:22 PM, Matthew Dillon wrote: [snips] Personally speaking, as much as GCC annoys me it is sometimes better to modify the utility code then to add yet another hack to GCC that needs to be synchronized every time we update.

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Peter Wemm
Matthew Dillon wrote: : :Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : How does this look for fixing this warning? : :No, gcc should accept a NULL format string for err(3). It looks like :__printf0like is broken. : :DES :-- :Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oops. I've

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Peter Wemm
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The main bug is that the warning is emitted. err(1, NULL) is perfectly valid (see err(4)). Apparently the sparc64 compiler is missing support for __printf0like. Strangely, my Alpha (July 3 -CURRENT) complains about this

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Mike Barcroft
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] peter@panther[4:22pm]~-106 cc -O -Wformat -c foo.c peter@panther[4:22pm]~-107 ie: it looks like it is completely disabled. Maybe the sparc64 tinderbox host is simply out of sync with -current? It has a kernel/world of June 27, which seems to be

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please do not. gcc is just a tool. If it emits a warning on some arches because gcc doesn't understand how our libraries work, then we should disable the gcc checking for those arches on those functions. ie: remove the __printf0like completely for

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
Whoever fixes this, and however we agree to fix it, should also remember to close the bin/40382 PR. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Mike Barcroft
Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whoever fixes this, and however we agree to fix it, should also remember to close the bin/40382 PR. Comments on the attached, untested patch? Best regards, Mike Barcroft Disable fatal warnings during bootstrap, build, and cross tools phase of

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-10 Thread Andrew Kolchoogin
Bruce, On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:23:06AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: The extra verboseness is fine, and I was almost finished posting a note that mentioned it. But I didn't thinking that the __printf0like bugs will never be fixed if we hide them by patching chmod. It was fixed more than a

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-07-08 Thread Doug Barton
Would it be possible to get better granularity on when things like this are sent to the list? Maybe some flag to set that says, Hey, I started an actual buildworld, so from here on out any errors get mailed to the list. Doug On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Mon Jul 8 07:00:00

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-06-27 Thread Mike Barcroft
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- Rebuilding the temporary build tree -- stage 1: bootstrap tools

Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure

2002-06-13 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thu Jun 13 07:00:00 GMT 2002 cvs [update aborted]: /home/ncvs/CVSROOT: Permission denied Mike, looks like the /work/repo isn't mounted on bowie. Can you fix this before the next run (7 am GMT tomorrow)? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL