On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:08:32AM -0400, Rod Smith wrote:
> According to the timetable at
> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.0R/schedule.html, DP2 for FreeBSD 5.0
I've updated that timetable to remove the specific date (it may take
up to 24 hours for the website to be updated). We're activel
Thank you.
Let's move on.
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Scott Long wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
> > experience.
>
> Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I c
Lamont Granquist wrote:
> 5.0 will be a beta and will not be ready for production use right?
No. But no one will use it anyway, because no one trusts a .0
version of anything.
> I'm not sure exactly how FreeBSD would be "pulling a redhat" by putting in
> a development snapshot if the 5.0 relea
David O'Brien wrote:
> > >It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going
> > >to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for
> > >FreeBSD to not be "pulling a RedHat" if they shipped a beta and
> > >called it 3.3) , might be GCC 3.2, and was currently down-rev
> >
aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
some boot blocks), but is broken in gcc3 for at least compile-time
assignments to long longs and shifts of long longs by a non-constant
amount:
%%%
$ cat z.c
long long x = 0;
int y;
foo()
{
x = x << y;
}
$ cc -O -S -ao
> > > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
> >
> > The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
> >
> > 3.1 prerelease -> 3.2 is a
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:51:19PM -0700, Pete Carah wrote:
> This showed up a few days ago; a tool-dependency problem
> in a cross-build.
>
> I build current under stable since this (acpi-only) system
> won't yet boot current (mostly appears to be the problem with
> TI pcic/cardbus chip interr
This showed up a few days ago; a tool-dependency problem
in a cross-build.
I build current under stable since this (acpi-only) system
won't yet boot current (mostly appears to be the problem with
TI pcic/cardbus chip interrupt routing)
The build of aicasm in the kernel mkdep works right; that
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > > > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > > > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
> > >
> > > The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgr
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:43:51PM -0700, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote:
> I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
> chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
> tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made tha
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:43:51PM -0700, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote:
> I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
> chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
> tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made tha
On 2002-09-01 18:43 +, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote:
> I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
> chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
> tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made that
> DP2 just go
I wanted to download via cvsup a snapshot of -current which I had a decent
chance of compiling (I need to look at some atacontrol RAID stuff). So I
tried to find a -current which had a recent tag, the comment was made that
DP2 just got a tag, but even a DP1 tag would do.
What should that tag be?
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
> experience.
Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I certainly didn't mean
it in the context of what's going on in other mailing lists, and it
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:14 PM, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
>> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
>> experience.
>
> I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
> troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
>
I wouldn't call it trolling
Hey lets find a way to keep this goddamned thread going..
huh can we... yeah... please... I love hitting delete!!!
Keep it up and we'll be as cool as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:12 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
>> Matthew Jacob wrote:
>>>
> Yes, as best as
> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
> experience.
I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
--
David W. Chapman Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBS
> Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes, as best as I can.
> > > >
> > > > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
> > >
> > > To quote Robert Watson:
> > >
> > > > My list basically consists of:
> > > > General
> > > > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms,
Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> > > Yes, as best as I can.
> > >
> > > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
> >
> > To quote Robert Watson:
> >
> > > My list basically consists of:
> > > General
> > > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
> > > depend
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:46:18PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:33:05PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
>
> > > Remember to recompile your C++ ports. GCC 3.2 is not binary compatible
> > > with 3.1.
> >
> > If this works out would it be a good idea to get this new
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:33:05PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> > Remember to recompile your C++ ports. GCC 3.2 is not binary compatible
> > with 3.1.
>
> If this works out would it be a good idea to get this new gcc version
> on the port build clusters for -current so we can get to wor
Totally off-topic for this thread, sorry.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:58:54PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> To quote Robert Watson:
>
> > My list basically consists of:
> > General
> > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
> > dependencies
Note: I have tried bringing
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:58:46PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> GCC 3.2.1-pre is now in the tree. Please let me know if you see any
> problems recompiling your world/kernel.
I have completed a world and kernel, just upgrading all my ports with
portupgrade -a -f now, we'll see how that goes.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
> by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out.
How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today??
"archaic" does apply however.
Why the fsck can't people come up t
> > Yes, as best as I can.
> >
> > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
>
> To quote Robert Watson:
>
> > My list basically consists of:
> > General
> > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
> > dependencies
> > - Switch in sysinstall to easi
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:51:52PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> >
> > Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
>
> Yes, as best as I can.
>
> But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
> My list basically consists of:
> General
> - GEOM as defau
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
> Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
> > again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
> > a patch, and
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
> again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
> a patch, and update the Mozilla people.
>
> Joe
Why would that chan
>
> Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Blapp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
>
> The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big
Great news. Hopefully this means we'll actually be able to ship 5.0 with
a working KDE, since the 3.1 gcc we were running with had compiler
optimization problems with the gif code. And, as previously discussed,
this was a big checkbox item for getting 5.0 in decent shape for the
release.
Thanks
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:23:58PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> This is the same as using RELENG_4_6 (ie, 4.6-SECURE) in something. We
> get bug fixes (that must work on *all* supported GCC arches). The risk
> is _well_ mitigated.
>
> Why is everyone second guessing Kan on this import??? It w
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a
> product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd
> assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change.
re@ have been practically begging for it.
> I'm *not* arguing against the cha
These arguments are all quite familiar- I'm not really moved one way or
the other.
The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a
product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd
assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change.
I'm *not* arguing ag
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
> at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
> firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
> Go back to sleep.
Would you rather that we ship with
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:00:34PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
>
> Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
> it now than later, wh
I personally always get a bit more concerned about compiler upgrades. I
can and do protect myself from errant /usr/src/sys changes, but
everthing else is cvsup based for me, so buildworlds really do need to
work well for me.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe fre
I should note that I'm raising more of a flag than normal.
This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
Go back to sleep.
On
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
> > development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
> > working pr
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
it now than later, when people will actually expect it to work.
I also dislike the apparent
GCC 3.2.1-pre is now in the tree. Please let me know if you see any
problems recompiling your world/kernel.
Remember to recompile your C++ ports. GCC 3.2 is not binary compatible
with 3.1.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in
Hi,
> totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
3.1 prerelease -> 3.2 is a little step which f
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
> development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
> working productively for around a month due to various this thats an
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:50:50PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't
> recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
To Unsubscri
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> > wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
>
> This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3
Well, actually, I *wasn't* asking for an upgrade.
>From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
working productively for around a month due to various this thats and
the others). If that's what peopl
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2 fixes a bug
that changes the API so it couldn't be
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be
fixed in 3.2.
GCC
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
> about ten minutes. This task should not take long to com
Core available on request.
Kris
panic: ffs_clusteralloc: map mismatch
panic messages:
---
panic: ffs_clusteralloc: map mismatch
Uptime: 23m31s
Dumping 510 MB
ata0: resetting devices ..
done
16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 160 176 192 208 224 240 256 272 288 304 320 336 352 368
384 400 416 432 44
Hi,
Do we have any plans to import bind 9.x into the base
system before the 5.0 release date. AFAIK it should break
some tools that rely on the resolver library. Is that correct?
I could not find any previous thread about this on both
current and hackers mailing list archives.
Thanks in adv
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 11:30:32PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote:
> I've seen other reports of similar crashes on the list. What version of
> imgact_elf.c is this?
$FreeBSD: src/sys/kern/imgact_elf.c,v 1.111 2002/06/02 20:05:54 schweikh Exp $
Kris
msg42383/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
unexpected delays, so please be patient.
Please respond immediately if you feel that
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> 3.3.0 will be released before FreeBSD 5.1. It is my advice to
> FreeBSD'ville that we go with a GCC 3.3 snapshot for FBSD 5.0 and a GCC
> 3.3.0 release for FBSD 5.1. That way we can get the new features of 3.3
> into our 5.x branch. AND get bug fixes
* David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-01 14:31]:
>
[snip]
>
> > >It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going
> > >to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for
> > >FreeBSD to not be "pulling a RedHat" if they shipped a beta and
> > >called it 3.3)
>
> It is *that* simple.
>
yep.
> Rather than bitch that 3.1.1 "sucks"; we should thanking the GCC
> Steering
> Committee that after much thought they were willing to take the
> vendors'
> needs into account. I am not sure FreeBSD would have done the same.
>
I never said it sucked... I think
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:41:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I thought it was the general consensus that the 3.1 version of
> >the compiler was broken, and generated bad code, and that the 3.2
> >compiler had a lot of these problems corrected, but destroyed
> >binary compatability with 3.
--
>>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
>>> stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
>>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
Hello,
I had "freeze at boot" problem with my laptop and -CURRENT:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=42262
I found the solution: setting hw.pci.enable_io_modes to 0.
So I have a question: that sysctl has to be =1 by default? I mean if I
have that issue with it and my laptop, maybe I'll
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> >
> > I think we're on our way to stabilizing -CURRENT enough for a DP2
> > soon. I would sit and wait it out just a tad longer. :-)
>
> A 5.0 DP2 branch was created just yesterday. So how ever good
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
> > I guess the fear is that, if they are willing to destroy binary
> > compatability between point releases, with another point release
> > in the wings, it would be risky to pick the point release one
> > behind to standardise upon.
> >
>
> There will hopefully
On Saturday, August 31, 2002, at 06:04 PM, Terry Lambert wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
>>> Because rather than leaving it alone for a while, they are already
>>> planning a 3.3. 8-).
>>>
>>> And comments on this list to that effect.
>>
>> I don't follow. The GCC group branches previous to a re
Hi,
>>> Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:39:45 +0900 の刻に「ume」、すなわち
>>> Hajimu UMEMOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 氏曰く
ume> Current sshd doesn't handle actual size of struct sockaddr correctly,
ume> and does copy it as long as just size of struct sockaddr. So, sshd
ume> deesn't log host
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Don Lewis wrote:
> This code in vflush() bothers me:
>
> mtx_lock(&mntvnode_mtx);
> loop:
> for (vp = TAILQ_FIRST(&mp->mnt_nvnodelist); vp; vp = nvp) {
> /*
> * Make sure this vnode wasn't reclaimed in getnewvnode().
>
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 10:31:15PM -0700, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> --
[...]
> --
> >>> Kernel build for GENERIC started on Sat Aug 31 22:28:29 PDT 2002
> --
On 31 Aug, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Another page fault in umount
I haven't seen any reports of this one before.
> #6 0xc0399a48 in calltrap () at {standard input}:98
> #7 0xc029198d in vflush (mp=0xc5e6, rootrefs=0, flags=2) at vnode_if.h:309
> #8 0xc0200eaa in devfs_unmount (mp=0xc5e6,
66 matches
Mail list logo
