On 14/08/18 01:21, Joel Sherrill wrote:
This is a new port and I don't see any reason to even pretend
that the old stack is an option.
How do you all feel about forcing libnetworking to disabled
on this port?
The old network stack doesn't work on 64-bit targets. I spent roughly
one day to fi
---
user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst | 52 ++-
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst b/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
index 19c4461..c13f369 100644
--- a/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
+++ b/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
@@ -136,10 +
This should be committed now.
Thanks.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Amaan Cheval
wrote:
> ---
> user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst | 52 ++-
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst b/user/bsps/bsps-x86_64.rst
>
On 15/08/2018 19:13, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 15/8/18 2:47 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> Ideas appreciated on how to debug this enough to find
>> the cause.
>>
>
> Does the attached patch help?
>
I have pushed this patch. I tested it on more than 500 executables on FreeBSD
and the process was no
I tried running coverage with this latest
master, covoar is taking up all the memory (7 GB) including the swap (7.6
GB)
and after a while, still gets killed. :(
can there be something wrong with my environment?
I tried running it on a different system,
coverage did run for the whole testsuite for
