On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:49:41PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> With Firefox 60.0 ESR now in experimental, most of the sparc64-related patches
> are now part of the upstream source.
>
> The only patches we actually need are the one to fix skia on big-endian
> targets
> (I am
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:33:32PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how t
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Luk Claes schrieb:
> > Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> Grant Grundler schrieb:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:49:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Grant Grundler wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Neil McGov
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:14:56AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 07:47 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > I've spent some time looking at this, and I'm a bit worried about
> > PKIX_PL_Object_Alloc. Specifically, sizeof(PKIX_PL_Object) seems to be
> > 28 on 32bit, and __alignof
n:/tmp# ls -l /foo/bar/baz
> - -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-12-29 03:49 /foo/bar/baz
> sun:/tmp# zpool destroy foo
> sun:/tmp# rm foo
Thanks for the feedback (I'm late, I know ;) )
Could someone still give me current policy regarding sparc64 code (see
below for a reminder of the or
Hi,
I'm currently giving a try to zfs-fuse (ITP #419746) and it has support
for sparc64. My understanding of the debian port is that it is mostly a
32 bits port, with a 64 bits kernel. The zfs-fuse build scripts only
deal with sparc64 as returned by uname -m, but builds as 32-bits
application with
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:15:03AM +0100, Sjoerd Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 08:44:23AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Or maybe something like this:
> >
> > diff --git a/JavaScriptCore/wtf/FastMalloc.cpp
> > b/JavaScriptCore/wtf
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 08:20:12AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> It could make sense, if sparc needs this uint64_t to be 64-bit aligned.
> And it looks like so:
>
> (gdb) print $pc
> $1 = (void (*)(void)) 0xf7e3b880 int)+104>
>
> (gdb) disassemble $pc $npc
> Dump of ass
(Cc'ing debian-sparc to get some informed opinion from there)
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 03:02:38AM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> [cutting a bit from different messages]
>
> On Tuesday 24 June 2008 01:33:36 Axel Beckert wrote:
>
> > One note though: Since I found the very same issue also with
> > ka
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:33:01AM +0200, Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 10:16 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
> > from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
> > objec
10 matches
Mail list logo
