On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:15 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Simon McVittie wrote:
> >On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 at 13:14:10 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> Arnd scanned the library packages in the Debian archive and identified
> >> that about one third of our library packages would need rebuilding
> >> (a
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:10 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ansgar:
> > Arnd Bergmann writes:
> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:16 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> There's going to be a _TIME_BITS selector, similar to
> >>> _FILE_OFFSET_BITS.
> &
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:07 PM Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > I agree that changing the i386 port is probably a bad idea at the moment,
> > let's see how the armhf port turns out and fix all the bugs first, as this
> > is c
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:16 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Ben Hutchings:
>
> > On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 11:57 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Ben Hutchings:
> >>
> >> > If I recall correctly, glibc *will* provide both entry points, so there
> >> > is no ABI break. But the size of time_t (etc.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 10:21 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Steve McIntyre:
>
> > The kernel is *basically* fixed now. Internally, data structures
> > should now be safe. There are a small number places where 32-bit time
> > is still a thing, but it's in hand. A number of syscalls, ioctls,
> > etc
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:03 PM Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 13:14:10 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > The glibc folks have taken an interesting approach.
> >
> > * 64-bit ABIs/architectures are already using 64-bit time_t
> >throughout. The design is sane and so we should al
On Friday 25 July 2003 14:44, Xavier Roche wrote:
> This is great news. Discussions on opteron port will be done in -devel?
> (especially problems like /lib+/lib64 vs /lib+/lib32, upgrading problems
> from i386 to opteron without-breaking-anything, and more)
No, there is another list for these iss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 07 July 2003 21:07, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> If I understand what linux32 does the program is quite trivial.
Right. I now found the 'official site' for the tool at
ftp://ftp.x86-64.org/pub/linux-x86_64/tools/linux32/
It's almost the same
On Saturday 05 July 2003 19:44, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> On amd64, we currently have a biarch-gcc that builds 32bit binaries by
> default, and 64bit ones with a -m64 option. Coding debian/rules for this
> is pretty trivial but still requires some ugly architecture specific
> hacks in each debian/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 02:00, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > In g++ 3.2, this code was distributed as "i386", and nobody noticed that
> > it doesn't work on i386 for quite some time. In gcc 3.3, an
> > implementa
On Monday 23 June 2003 19:41, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 08:00:07PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Talk is cheap. If you can come up with a solution to the C++ problem
> > that ignited this debate then i386 would be safe.
>
> Nobody has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 16 June 2003 09:12, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> # echo x86-64 >>/etc/dpkg/legal-archs
>
> or, if ordering matters,
>
> # echo x86-64 >/etc/dpkg/legal-archs.new
> # cat /etc/dpkg/legal-archs >>/etc/dpkg/legal-archs.new
> # mv /etc/dpkg/legal-ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 10:27, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Let's look at your example:
> | Patch-name: Debian base patch
> | Patch-id: debian
> | Architecture: all
> | Kernel-version: 2.4.20
> | Depends: ptrace, isdnbonding, binfmtmisc, ethernetpadding, ...
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 26 May 2003 22:20, Yann Dirson wrote:
> If you mean, whether it can handle something like "Architecture:
> !ia64, !hppa", well, not yet, although it could be done. But that
> would mean stopping the use of make-kpkg-level architecture suppo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 25 May 2003 06:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:51:05AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > As a real-world example, kernel-patch-s390 can provide
> > the ptrace bug fix from Martin Schwidefsky, while
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why can't Debian have just one tree for multiple architectures like
> > SuSE and RedHat (sometimes) do. Okay suse supports 'only' i386,
> > x86_64,ppc,ppc64,s390,s390x,ia64 but their kernel also has p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 30 April 2003 16:29, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Anthony DeRobertis
> | Please explain how I can get a similar system, running on a similar
> | amount of power, and with no moving parts (i.e., no fans) using, even a
> | P-II.
>
> http://www
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 21:22, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> That won't help anything. "Compiling without threads" isn't really
> supported on Linux: if threads are not used, this is always a
> link-time/runtime issue, not a compile time issue.
Right, fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 07:50, you wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, look at my patch again. If you build without i486 optimization,
> > the compiler will see only the extern declaration for
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 28 April 2003 23:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > They have to be compiled for i386, as they have always been.
> > If they were compiled for i486, they would not run on i38
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 28 April 2003 22:00, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> So should the standard binaries (apt, groff, OpenGL libraries, kde
> libraries) be compiled for 386 or 486?
>
> If 486, how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 26 April 2003 16:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Is it possible to "fix" this (ie, provide ABI compatible versions for
> i386 and i486) without breaking stuff? 386s are faster than many other
> pieces of hardware that we still support, so dro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 26 April 2003 04:21, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 03:41:31AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This would be a good border, but we would need to provide a much larger
> > subset of packages (if not all the distro) for 386
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 April 2003 19:31, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > No, the only thing that is enforced is that i386 systems cannot use the
> > i486+ ABI. It is a very possible s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 April 2003 19:36, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> You know this will probably require modifications in *thousands* of
> packages ?
Yes, I fully understand the impact. I've done it for half the packages
in something similar to Red Hat 9 on s390
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 April 2003 16:32, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I find that this might be better, than using /lib64, for 64-bit
> mode libraries, because we need to modify almost everything that
> uses dlopen, right ?
>
> I am assuming that dlopen calls need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 April 2003 15:43, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 01:37:04PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > Hmm... I'd argue for putting the split at either 386 vs 486+ (the latter
> > at least has a math copro and CMPXCHG), or at 386-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 24 April 2003 20:00, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> Good point... it is probably best to follow the decisions made at the
> kernel/gcc layer. And since both of these call the platform x86-64,
> that is what will stick.
No, they don't both use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 24 April 2003 19:05, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> On a side note, it would seem that the 'x86-64' branding may be dropped
> in favor of 'AMD64'.
True, at least SuSE and MicroSoft are only talking about AMD64 on their
product pages. OTOH, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 21 April 2003 19:52, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> IMVHO, there is an intermediate alternative: why not ...
> ... create a new x86-64 architecture
> ... tweak dpkg so that ${DEB_ARCH}=="x86-64" admits both i386 and x86-64
> binaries;
> Naturally,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've found the bug in bochs that was stopping me from testing my
biarch tool chain and all the basic stuff seems to work fine now.
Anyone interested in an x86-64 debian port can now experiment
with the packages I have uploaded to http://www.arndb.de/de
On Saturday 12 April 2003 16:58, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> > Every architecture knows where its libraries are installed. One way
> > would be to make 'dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_LIBTYPE' return
On Saturday 12 April 2003 15:42, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> How do you generate binary packages libfoo or lib64foo out of source
> foo depending on the target architecture?
Every architecture knows where its libraries are installed. One way
would be to make 'dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_LIBTY
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 12 April 2003 13:00, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Yes, but what I also want to avoid is having to change every single
> > instance of 'Depends: libfoo' to 'Depends: libfoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 April 2003 23:17, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > What I have in mind is something along the lines of
> > libfoo 'Provides: libfoo(32bit)'
> > lib64foo 'Provides: libfoo(64bit)'
> > bar 'Depends: libfoo($BITSIZE)'
> > I don't know i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 April 2003 15:49, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 06:23:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 April 2003 16:43, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:33:39PM +0200, Wich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 April 2003 16:43, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:33:39PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >
> > # echo x86-64 >> /etc/dpkg/legal-archs
> > # dpkg -i libgtk2-2.0-1_i386.deb
> > # dpkg -i lib64gtk2-2.0-1_x8664.deb
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 April 2003 12:16, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> Other alternative: only install and run 32bit apps in a chroot-style
> thingy, 64bit stuff being the native type. Is that useful/possible ?
Possible -- sure, but not useful except as an option
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 April 2003 03:46, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > IMO, the right way is just like ia64 is doing. 64bit userspace with an
> > ia32 subarch installable. Best part about this is that you can use
> > almost everything ia64 is doing already. In fac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 April 2003 03:24, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> On x86-64, things might be a bit different, though, because the 64 bit
> variant has more registers and therefore gcc might produce better code
> and binaries might run faster. If that is the cas
40 matches
Mail list logo
