On Thursday 09 April 2009 00:28:24 Guo Hongruan wrote:
I think uclibc.org should have a Regression testing method or suite to
ensure uclibc's functionality and/or performance.
it's an open source project. feel free to contribute tests. saying i want
more tests doesnt really motivate people
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 23:44:07 Dan E wrote:
-- patch start --
posting patches inline meant for direct inclusion really only works when:
- it's only 1 patch
- patch is at the end of the e-mail
multiple patches should either be separate e-mails or attached. there should
Hi,
I took a quick stab at making i386 work on the nptl branch.
What is done:
1. i386 specific makefiles
2. uclibc headers providing the syscall wrappers were updated
3. updated some files from newer nptl snapshot
4. added ld.so support for tls relocations
5. tried to clean up some files for not
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 17:11:08 Yann E. MORIN wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 01:45:57 Mike Frysinger wrote:
iirc, it is possible to build a toolchain that supports both big and
little endian simultaneously. i believe the code sorcery guys do this.
i would leave this option in for
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 18:03:55 Yann E. MORIN wrote:
As previously suggested, here is a patch that gets rid of the ARM variant
choice in the menuconfig.
Unlike the previous submission, the endianness is still passed down to the
compiler and linker.
This patch is just a proof of concept,
On Thursday 09 April 2009 12:02:50 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 18:03:55 Yann E. MORIN wrote:
As previously suggested, here is a patch that gets rid of the ARM variant
choice in the menuconfig.
Unlike the previous submission, the endianness is still passed down to
On Monday 06 April 2009 10:26:33 pm Sagar Borikar wrote:
Hi,
Just wanted to check whether cortex A8 (ARM) is supported in uClibc?
If yes, please provide information about which version does that
cortex-a8 has new thumb2 instruction set and uclibc can be compiled in thumb2
mode AFAICT (
I
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:48:56 am Groleo Marius wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 27 March 2009 08:58:07 Groleo Marius wrote:
I had some problems compiling and later, using shared libraries from
uClibc-0.9.30.1 on a Coldfire M5485
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 08:44:07 pm Dan E wrote:
It figures. Let's try that again without the word wrapping.
-- patch start --
Index: uClibc-nptl/include/unistd.h
===
--- uClibc-nptl/include/unistd.h
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 23:44:07 Dan E wrote:
-- patch start --
posting patches inline meant for direct inclusion really only works when:
- it's only 1 patch
- patch is at the end of the e-mail
On Thursday 09 April 2009 03:15:34 Khem Raj wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009 12:02:50 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 18:03:55 Yann E. MORIN wrote:
As previously suggested, here is a patch that gets rid of the ARM
variant choice in the menuconfig.
Unlike the
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 10:21:59 pm Dan E wrote:
This is the third patch. It moves inclusion of mktemp.c outside of the
dependency
on UCLIBC_HAS_FLOATS. I'm not sure if this is desirable or not, but I am
almost
certain that _any_ reliance on 'mktemp' is a bad thing. NPTL seems to
On Thursday 09 April 2009 01:06:36 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009 03:15:34 Khem Raj wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009 12:02:50 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 18:03:55 Yann E. MORIN wrote:
As previously suggested, here is a patch that gets rid of
On Friday 27 March 2009 11:58:07 Groleo Marius wrote:
The attached patches fixes the problems I've encountered:
please fix your e-mail client so it has patches show up inline/automatically
so that it's easier to review
- m68k_cf_no_mmap2.patch
: Disable mmap2() if we're compiling for
On Thursday 09 April 2009 04:01:23 Dan E wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 23:44:07 Dan E wrote:
-- patch start --
posting patches inline meant for direct inclusion really only works when:
- it's only 1 patch
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Khem Raj wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 10:27:44 pm Dan E wrote:
OK, I lied. There are 4 patches in all for this set.
I could not get a clean build without these changes.
what error messages do you get without this patch ?
A better way
On Thursday 09 April 2009 01:25:59 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 27 March 2009 11:58:07 Groleo Marius wrote:
The attached patches fixes the problems I've encountered:
please fix your e-mail client so it has patches show up inline/automatically
so that it's easier to review
-
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:48 -0700, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 10:27:44 pm Dan E wrote:
OK, I lied. There are 4 patches in all for this set.
I could not get a clean build without these changes.
what error messages do you get without this patch ?
A
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:43 +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO
carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Khem Raj wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 10:27:44 pm Dan E wrote:
OK, I lied. There are 4 patches in all for this set.
I could not get a clean build without
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009 04:01:23 Dan E wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 23:44:07 Dan E wrote:
-- patch start --
posting patches inline
On Thursday 09 April 2009 06:10:26 Dan E wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009 04:01:23 Dan E wrote:
I have no interest in the trunk right now. If the NPTL code was in the
trunk then I would wholeheartedly agree with you 100%. As it
Hello,
Is there anyone interested in porting the NPTL branch to x86/x86-64?
Regards,
Cristi
--
Ing. Cristi Măgherușan, System/Network Engineer
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania
http://cc.utcluj.ro +40264 401247
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Khem, Mike,
All,
On Thursday 09 April 2009 10:23:18 Khem Raj wrote:
I think we could get the features like mtune and march out and let
users specify them but IMO I see some value in leave the others in
bundle to form the support that a particular variant has which is
not generic. e.g.
On Thursday 09 April 2009 10:24:53 Cristi Magherusan wrote:
Is there anyone interested in porting the NPTL branch to x86/x86-64?
always interested in accepting patches, but no one appears to be interested in
doing the porting work atm
-mike
___
uClibc
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 05:04:25 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 04:14:05 ipif wrote:
I'm working on an embedded sparc system with linux-2.6.21 and
uclibc-0.9.30. When I try to touch a fifo, touch itself stops waiting for
data. This is not the expected behavior, as it
On Friday 10 April 2009 01:07:52 Timo Teräs wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009 10:24:53 Cristi Magherusan wrote:
Is there anyone interested in porting the NPTL branch to x86/x86-64?
always interested in accepting patches, but no one appears to be
interested in doing
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 10 April 2009 01:07:52 Timo Teräs wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009 10:24:53 Cristi Magherusan wrote:
Is there anyone interested in porting the NPTL branch to x86/x86-64?
always interested in accepting patches, but no one appears to be
27 matches
Mail list logo
