On Monday, November 3, 2008 02:22:12 Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Вск, 02/11/2008 в 12:11 -0700, Gordon Malm пишет:
> > You can cry "abuse" all you want. You FAIL to offer any alternatives or
> > solutions. I'll ask again, how do you detect that you are compiling code
> > destined to be run in-kernel
В Вск, 02/11/2008 в 12:11 -0700, Gordon Malm пишет:
> You can cry "abuse" all you want. You FAIL to offer any alternatives or
> solutions. I'll ask again, how do you detect that you are compiling code
> destined to be run in-kernel from within gcc without checking for the
> __KERNEL__ macro?
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:11:10 -0700
Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you conclusively established that they do build fine in
> > parallel? If so, how? And why do they break in parallel only under
> > distcc? Given how distcc works, this strikes me as somewhat
> > implausible...
>
> Ye
On Sunday, November 2, 2008 03:26:14 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:29:03 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're the one assuming the only purpose would be to mask parallel
> > make problems. Apparently it does have a purpose though since
> > avidemux builds fi
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:29:03 -0700
Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're the one assuming the only purpose would be to mask parallel
> make problems. Apparently it does have a purpose though since
> avidemux builds fine in parallel but NOT via distcc.
Have you conclusively established th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gordon Malm wrote:
All the technical discussion on the above is perfectly fine, but the way
the arguments are being presented and the tone used by both sides is
getting arguments into a thin line from becoming flames.
Please step back before turning
On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:57:52 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Parallel building problems can often and should be addressed
> > properly. I don't want the answer to every one that comes along to
> > be to add RESTRICT="distcc". This is something to be addressed
> > through developer documentat
On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:57:17 Gordon Malm wrote:
> I'd like to get "distcc" added as one of the FEATURES we are able to
> RESTRICT.
Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, does it fix all the known
issues if the ebuild sets DISTCC_HOSTS="localhost" in the environment?
Gordon Malm wrote:
It looks to me like you've already made up your mind. How is hardened doing
the entirely wrong thing?
From the page [1] you mentioned:
"If so, that seems to me like an abuse of the -D option."
The abuse is in changing the compiler behavior based on -D options.
What do you
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:47:09 -0700
Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It looks to me like hardened is doing entirely the wrong thing.
> > Thus, the proper fix is to make hardened behave itself.
>
> It looks to me like you've already made up your mind. How is
> hardened doing the entirely w
On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:11:16 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:58:39 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I use madwifi-ng extensively and have experienced the same issue with
> > madwifi-ng as stated in that bug. For bug #167844, please read
> > comment #13
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:58:39 -0700
Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use madwifi-ng extensively and have experienced the same issue with
> madwifi-ng as stated in that bug. For bug #167844, please read
> comment #13 and http://code.google.com/p/distcc/issues/detail?id=25.
> There's nothin
On Saturday, November 1, 2008 14:28:06 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:21:43 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be
> > compiled with support for a particular item and the distccd host's
> > kernel do
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:21:43 -0700
Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be
> compiled with support for a particular item and the distccd host's
> kernel does not have that support compiles fail. Reference bug
> #120001 (though I
If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be compiled
with support for a particular item and the distccd host's kernel does not
have that support compiles fail. Reference bug #120001 (though I know that
it was properly diagnosed there).
Then there's also this doozie. -
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:57:17 -0700
Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in the case of out-of-tree kernel modules the idea
> of distributing compile jobs to other machines is fundamentally
> flawed IMO.
Why? And how are out of tree kernel modules in any way special when it
comes to distcc?
I'd like to get "distcc" added as one of the FEATURES we are able to RESTRICT.
It is true that RESTRICT="distcc" is usually not the proper solution to
problems. But in the case of out-of-tree kernel modules the idea of
distributing compile jobs to other machines is fundamentally flawed IMO.
A
17 matches
Mail list logo
