At 21:12 -0500 8/5/03, Steven Wilcoxon wrote:
> Since the IP address I gave to the SS1+ is 10.0.0.17, I guess
the filename then becomes A011.SUN4M. So, I symbolically linked
the file:
A0 is 160, 0A is 10.
Sorry for that; I am typing challenged. Also, "Derek Payne"
<[EMAIL PROTE
> http://auric.debian.org/~bcollins/disks-sparc/current/
New images up. These enable reiserfs at install (built-in to the kernel)
adn also fixes the seperate /boot partition problem. This, of couse, was
needed since you need a seperate /boot with reiserfs. Unless someone is
willing to write a reis
On Wed, 2003-08-06 12:43:45 -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Ben Collins wrote:
> Will sarge ever support at least the sun4m-softmul people, or will
> they be stuck with woody from now on?
i386 seems to be just dieing, so why sh
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Ben Collins wrote:
> Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
> v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
> old v7/v8softmul was bringing performance down noticably (and I mean
> visually being able to measure small t
At Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:27:00 -0400,
Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:08:15AM +0200, Harald Nordg?rd-Hansen wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
> > > v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up).
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:08:15AM +0200, Harald Nordg?rd-Hansen wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
> > v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
> > old v7/v8softmul was bringing pe
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> davem@redhat.com writes:
>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 22:38:45 -0700
>Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Which machines are sun4m-softmul as opposed to sun4m?
>Depends upon the processor installed, Cypress cpus are the ones that
>are sun4m-softmul softmul. These are
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
> v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
> old v7/v8softmul was bringing performance down noticably (and I mean
> visually being able to measure small task
GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If this bug is occured by kernel changes, then this bug should be
> reassigned to kernel-image-2.4.21-{sun4*,sparc*} package.
Nope, this bug occurred by libc6/gcc changes. It is masked/fixed by
using kernel 2.4.21, current libc6 is incompatible with all
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 22:38:45 -0700
Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which machines are sun4m-softmul as opposed to sun4m?
> sparcstation classic
> sparcstation lx
> sparcstation 10 (various processors)
> sparcstation 20 (various processors)
Depends upon the processor installed, Cypress c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>sun4c and sun4m-softmul owners should stick with woody.
Which machines are sun4m-softmul as opposed to sun4m?
sparcstation classic
sparcstation lx
sparcstation 10 (various processors)
sparcstation 20 (various processors)
--
Blars Blarson
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:14:41 -0400
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I remember correctly, there was a lot of flip-flop about which driver
> was the right now, and different people had differing success with
> both.
>
> Or maybe I'm just totally losing it :)
>
> I'll add the tulip drive
12 matches
Mail list logo
