On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Salvatore CRO' <[email protected]> wrote: > Khem Raj wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Salvatore CRO' <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 2/20/2010 4:25 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/10/2010 3:24 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> commit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/commit/?id=ed0915ba70d0ff6ed0a78f45d46822763a580737 >>>>>>> branch: >>>>>>> http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/commit/?id=refs/heads/nptl_glibc_sync >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Khem, >>>>>> I have limited capabilities to contribute currently due to a healthy >>>>>> issue at my shoulder, I'll ask some engineers in my team to do a lot >>>>>> of >>>>>> tests on sh4. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thanks Carmelo. is it booting on sh yet or not ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> not yet tested... I'll let you know. >>>> >>>> carmelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> uClibc-cvs mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc-cvs >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Hi Khem, Carmelo, >>> I gave a boot on 7111 ST soc after building this branch and seems ok. I >>> also >>> did few (uClibc) testing with no issues. >>> >> >> Great. Did the regression tests work well too ? >> >> >>> >>> Salvo. >>> >>> > > Whole uClibc test suite done on sh with no regressions.
very good. The branch is not merged into original nptl branch so it would be good that you can carry on testing the nptl branch now. There are other changes done on top will need to be seen if they are ok on SH4 or not. > > Salvo. > _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
