Bug#251149: Bug #251149: gcc wrapper for sparc is chronically broken

2005-05-24 Thread David S . Miller
From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:29:16 -0400 > And what about building kernels? They will by default be building > sparc32 kernels. That's the most likely place for this to be a > problem. People can't wrap their brain around how to build a sparc64 kernel often righ

Bug#251149: Bug #251149: gcc wrapper for sparc is chronically broken

2005-05-24 Thread David S . Miller
From: "Jim Crilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:42:27 -0400 > True, but building kernels on sparc64 wasn't terribly fun for me the last > time I tried it either so I decided it wasn't worth it and just stuck with > the Debian kernel images. Amusing as I do all of the sparc64 ker

Bug#251149: Bug #251149: gcc wrapper for sparc is chronically broken

2005-05-23 Thread David S . Miller
From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:21:57 -0400 > But (and this but is for David), that means users can't simply do > "apt-get source foo; cd foo-1.1; dpkg-buildpackage" and get the same build > they got from us, which is a consistency Debian needs. Maintainers trying >

Bug#251149: Bug #251149: gcc wrapper for sparc is chronically broken

2005-05-23 Thread David S . Miller
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:24:18 -0700 > The other alternative is to "touch /etc/disable_64_gcc Sure, but in the mail you are specifically replying to I stated: > > Also, /etc/disable_64_gcc is a workaround and should not be there > > by default as it is now, especially on

Bug#251149: Bug #251149: gcc wrapper for sparc is chronically broken

2005-05-21 Thread David S . Miller
From: Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 01:37:50 +0200 > David S. Miller wrote: > [snip] > > This is not a bug, it should be closed. On sparc64, gcc should emit > > 64-bit code by default. If you want 32-bit code emitted on a sparc64 > &g

Bug#251149: Bug #251149: gcc wrapper for sparc is chronically broken

2005-05-21 Thread David S. Miller
On Sat, 21 May 2005 14:06:52 +0200 Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this bug has been open for quite some time as "important". Can some > sparc people please comment on it? This is not a bug, it should be closed. On sparc64, gcc should emit 64-bit code by default. If you want 32-bit c

Re: Lack of 64 bit support in devel tools for stable, current and future.

2004-10-04 Thread David S. Miller
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:29:01 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The lack of a 64 bit compiler able to compile to a 64bit sparc > version 9b instruction set is really, really, really, really pissing > me and hundreds if not thousands of other people off. > > The versions of gcc available in the cu