From: Jim Crilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:42:27 -0400
True, but building kernels on sparc64 wasn't terribly fun for me the last
time I tried it either so I decided it wasn't worth it and just stuck with
the Debian kernel images.
Amusing as I do all of the sparc64 kernel
From: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:29:16 -0400
And what about building kernels? They will by default be building
sparc32 kernels. That's the most likely place for this to be a
problem.
People can't wrap their brain around how to build a sparc64
kernel often right
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:24:18 -0700
The other alternative is to touch /etc/disable_64_gcc
Sure, but in the mail you are specifically replying to I stated:
Also, /etc/disable_64_gcc is a workaround and should not be there
by default as it is now, especially on your
On Sat, 21 May 2005 14:06:52 +0200
Falk Hueffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this bug has been open for quite some time as important. Can some
sparc people please comment on it?
This is not a bug, it should be closed. On sparc64, gcc should emit
64-bit code by default. If you want 32-bit code
From: Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 01:37:50 +0200
David S. Miller wrote:
[snip]
This is not a bug, it should be closed. On sparc64, gcc should emit
64-bit code by default. If you want 32-bit code emitted on a sparc64
system you have exactly two options 1) add
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:29:01 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lack of a 64 bit compiler able to compile to a 64bit sparc
version 9b instruction set is really, really, really, really pissing
me and hundreds if not thousands of other people off.
The versions of gcc available in the
6 matches
Mail list logo
