ernels by the kernel team a
few weeks ago is already a good step into this direction.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Julien, could you maybe try downgrading to the older binutils version, and
seeing what went wrong ?
As said on irc, the likely solution here would be to disable the alpha native
compilers until the solution is found.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:01:18PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:28:57PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > tags 336167 +patch
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:28:57PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> tags 336167 +patch
> thanks
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> [snip]
> > > The appended patch reverts a single line of the diff between 4.0.2-2
> > > and 4.0.2-3 and lets the testcase succeed. I don't
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:33:35PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Package: gcc-4.0
> > > Version: 4.0.2-3
> > > Severity: grave
> > > Justification: renders package unusable
> > >
> > &
t; {standard input}:72: Error: symbol `name_index' is
already defined
08:42 < svenl> {standard input}:77: Error: symbol `value' is already
defined
While a 4.0.2-2 build passed fine.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:02:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> > > That said, i have close to zero deep understanding on how glibc and gcc
> > > interact on this issue, and what is
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:02:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > That said, i have close to zero deep understanding on how glibc and gcc
> > interact on this issue, and what is going on about libgcc. I am told by
> > the #ppc64 folk that i should compi
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 10:44:10AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > BTW, is it possible to easily disable the tests in order to spare a few
> > hours of build when experimenting like that. Having to wait 7 hours for
> > the build to complete is, well
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:02:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > That said, i have close to zero deep understanding on how glibc and gcc
> > interact on this issue, and what is going on about libgcc. I am told by
> > the #ppc64 folk that i should compi
and gcc
interact on this issue, and what is going on about libgcc. I am told by
the #ppc64 folk that i should compile gcc with the ppc64 target, but
have it default to 32bit code by default. My early tries for this try to
generate a lib64gcc1, and fails, as you said. Do you have any wisdom to
share with me about why this is the case ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 12:44:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > It builds simple binaries without problems. But it didn't build the
> > > biarch toolchain, so it was of no use for me.
> > >
> > > After a bit of investigation, i found out that :
>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 08:12:36AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > First, i found that this gcc-3.4 package in experimental wasn't yet
> > built on powerpc, which i did. It did output lot of FAILs in the tests
> > later on, but i am not su
for ordinary powerpc, but would
allow to build ppc64 stuff with the same toolchain. Am i correct with
this assumption ? I will try tomorrow to build this, but would it make
sense to enable this in the experimental powerpc packages ? And what
about the not gcc or cxx compilers ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
ething such, but i don't think it
is a problem with my build dependencies, since as said libstdc++5-dev is
pulled in by xlibmesa-glu-dev.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
ecise case, altough that would be fine too, but what is causing it in
general) so i know what i am looking for in the source code.
Notice, that ocamlc builds fine with gcc 3.2 on all the other arches, if
i am not wrong.
Thanks in advance for any help you may give me.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
16 matches
Mail list logo
