On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:22:36 +0300
Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:47:44AM -0400, Wesley Morgan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have built XFree86 at least 3 times in the past week, all with
> > varying levels of optimization, from -O to -O3 and ALWAYS
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:47:44AM -0400, Wesley Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have built XFree86 at least 3 times in the past week, all with varying
> levels of optimization, from -O to -O3 and ALWAYS with -march=pentium3.
> All of the builds succeeded, although I had stability problems
I have built XFree86 at least 3 times in the past week, all with varying
levels of optimization, from -O to -O3 and ALWAYS with -march=pentium3.
All of the builds succeeded, although I had stability problems with -O2
and above. Are you _certain_ this is a compiler bug?
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Vallo
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 03:13:15PM -0700, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 01:55:18PM +0300, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
>
> > This isn't a yesterdays problem, I've had this for a month or so.
> > The problem is explicit declaration of -march=p[234], use
> > CPUTYPE=i
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 01:55:18PM +0300, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> This isn't a yesterdays problem, I've had this for a month or so.
> The problem is explicit declaration of -march=p[234], use
> CPUTYPE=i686 in /etc/make.conf and you get further. The second way
> is to not set CPUTYPE at all, logi
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 11:08:13AM -0400, Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Heh, this sounds like a joke.. because I have written at least three
> > messages to -current list about the very same thing. I know that
> > following -current list for day-to-day basis is challenge, but
>
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:54:25 +0300
Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heh, this sounds like a joke.. because I have written at least three
> messages to -current list about the very same thing. I know that
> following -current list for day-to-day basis is challenge, but
> nevertheless t
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:31:38PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > This isn't a yesterdays problem, I've had this for a month or so.
> > The problem is explicit declaration of -march=p[234], use
> > CPUTYPE=i686 in /etc/make.conf and you get further. The second way
On 2002-09-23 13:55, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 03:08:02AM -0700, "David P. Reese Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > Current as of yesterday
> >
> > The XFree86 server build dies with an odd compiler message. I have no clue
> > what it means.
> >
> > [snip]
> > LD_LIBRARY_
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 03:08:02AM -0700, "David P. Reese Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Current as of yesterday
>
> [daver@metropolis:/usr/ports/sysutils/xmbmon]$ uname -a
> FreeBSD metropolis.gomerbud.com 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #1: Sun Sep 22
>10:42:53 PDT 2002 [EMAIL PROTECT
Current as of yesterday
[daver@metropolis:/usr/ports/sysutils/xmbmon]$ uname -a
FreeBSD metropolis.gomerbud.com 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #1: Sun Sep 22
10:42:53 PDT 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/METROPOLIS
i386
The XFree86 server build dies with an odd compiler messag
11 matches
Mail list logo
