On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:29:48PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Are you sure you're not interchanging A8 and A9, cfr. Linux kernel commit
> e388b80288aade31 ("ARM: spectre-v2: add Cortex A8 and A15 validation of the
> IBE bit")?
Yes. That is the main reason the A9 is faster than the A8 at t
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:20:50AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> in addition, arm64 is usually speculative OoO (Cavium ThunderX V1
> being a notable exception) which means it's vulnerable to spectre and
> meltdown attacks, whereas 32-bit ARM is exclusively in-order. if you
> want t
I just tried with the gcc 7.2.0 cross compiler. It took 28 minutes to
compile the file but it did finish. It took 5 times the ram and 30
times the time that it took to compile for amd64. It was not stuck,
just doing a lot of work trying to optimize it seems.
Fixing the causes of the warnings ha
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:42:37PM -0500, wrote:
> I am seeing something very confusing with the gcc-4.9 source package.
>
> On jessie, gcc-4.9 is currentl version 4.9.1-19. However if you do
> 'apt-get source gcc-4.9' it gives you 4.9.2-4. For some reason the
> Sources.xz for jessie contains e
I am seeing something very confusing with the gcc-4.9 source package.
On jessie, gcc-4.9 is currentl version 4.9.1-19. However if you do
'apt-get source gcc-4.9' it gives you 4.9.2-4. For some reason the
Sources.xz for jessie contains entries for gcc-4.9 with versions:
Version: 4.9.1-3
Standards
It seems buliding working cross compiler packages doesn't work in squeeze,
since the -base packages are still not dealt with (contrary to what
README.cross says will happen when you regenerate the control file).
So did 4.4.4-10 ever fix this?
--
Len Sorensen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:35:40PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:37:34AM +, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Lennart, could you try to rebuild on armhf, we are trying to bootstrap
> > armhf in
> > official main and contrib Debian archive, bu
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:37:34AM +, Hector Oron wrote:
> Lennart, could you try to rebuild on armhf, we are trying to bootstrap armhf
> in
> official main and contrib Debian archive, but build seems to hang:
>
> See
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ruby1.9.1&arch=armhf&ver=
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:37:34AM +, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello Lennart,
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:08:29AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:48:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Ruby 1.9.3 is going to be released in september
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:48:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Ruby 1.9.3 is going to be released in september, and is a candidate for
> the default ruby version in wheezy. A snapshot is available in
> experimental. Now is an ideal time to work on porting issues and get the
> fixes integrated up
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:56:37PM -0700, Gordon Haverland wrote:
> I must get better at phrasing things then. There is a lot of
> feedback in the bug report. However, within the bug report there
> are still many questions which are never answered or commented
> upon. As far as feedback goes,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 07:21:49PM -0700, Gordon Haverland wrote:
> Occasionally I get an email from someone who is reporting back to
> many people, but in general I have gotten NO FEEDBACK on this bug
> report! It apparently wasn't reproducible to the person fielding
> the bug report, but it i
12 matches
Mail list logo
