On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:41:31AM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Lev.
> You wrote 2 ноября 2012 г., 23:24:28:
>
> BD>> Make sure to read UPDATING (from ports) to correctly migrate your system
> or find
> BD>> instruction to make your system still running with legacy pkg_install
> tools.
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:41:31AM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Lev.
> You wrote 2 ноября 2012 г., 23:24:28:
>
> BD>> Make sure to read UPDATING (from ports) to correctly migrate your system
> or find
> BD>> instruction to make your system still running with legacy pkg_install
> tools.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 2 November 2012 14:26, Jeff Roberson wrote:
I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change
to the way timeshare threads are handled.
http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff
Previously ULE used a fixed slice size
Hello, Lev.
You wrote 2 ноября 2012 г., 23:24:28:
BD>> Make sure to read UPDATING (from ports) to correctly migrate your system
or find
BD>> instruction to make your system still running with legacy pkg_install
tools.
LS> Did somebody update nanobsd scripts? ;-)
Simple replacing "pkg_add" with
On 2 November 2012 14:26, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change
> to the way timeshare threads are handled.
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff
>
> Previously ULE used a fixed slice size for all timeshare threads. Now it
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:19:57AM +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
> (cross-posted message; please keep discussion on freebsd-hackers@)
>
> Hello,
>
> Last year FreeBSD qualified for Google Code-In 2011 event--contest for
> youngest open-source hackers in 13-17yr age range:
>
> http://www
Hello, Baptiste.
You wrote 10 октября 2012 г., 17:44:21:
BD> Make sure to read UPDATING (from ports) to correctly migrate your system or
find
BD> instruction to make your system still running with legacy pkg_install tools.
Did somebody update nanobsd scripts? ;-)
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Sereb
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 1 November 2012 10:40, Ian Lepore wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>> I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
>>> actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s
I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change
to the way timeshare threads are handled.
http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff
Previously ULE used a fixed slice size for all timeshare threads. Now it
scales the slice size down based on load. This should
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:29:45PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> >> - Not all libm tests pass. More work by subject matter experts is
> >>required to create tests cases for LLVM
On 2 November 2012 12:23, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:30:50PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> Nice :)
>>
>> Does this deserve mentioning in UPDATING and/or version bump?
>
> It certainly does deserve mention in UPDATING. A version bump is
> probably useful if we end up wanting
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:30:50PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
> Nice :)
>
> Does this deserve mentioning in UPDATING and/or version bump?
It certainly does deserve mention in UPDATING. A version bump is
probably useful if we end up wanting to make USE_GCC=any the default
post the switch so I wi
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:21:19AM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:08:18 +1100
> From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey"
> To: Erich Dollansky
> Subject: FORTRAN vs. Fortran (was: November 5th is Clang-Day)
>
> On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 12:21:03
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:59:17PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:29:45PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > - Not all libm tests pass. More work by subject matter experts is
> >required to create tests cases for LLVM developers. Most problems are
> >not expected to b
On 11/2/2012 8:30 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
Nice :)
Does this deserve mentioning in UPDATING and/or version bump?
I would think so.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 08:28:48AM -0400, Kim Culhan wrote:
> K> Thanks for that, so far the working revision has been found in r240826.
> K>
> K> Would anyone have a suggestion for a revision to try next ?
>
> Middle between r240826 and revi
Nice :)
Does this deserve mentioning in UPDATING and/or version bump?
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:29:45PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Monday, November 5th I plan to commit the following patch to make
> clang the default compiler on i386 and amd64. Many people have worked
> long and hard to ma
Den 02/11/2012 kl. 04.29 skrev Brooks Davis :
> On Monday, November 5th I plan to commit the following patch to make
> clang the default compiler on i386 and amd64. Many people have worked
> long and hard to make this a reality and we're finally close enough to
> throw the switch.
Congratulation
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:27:44AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> caNyO usti llputw hitespa cewhere ever you like in for TraN?
>
Sigh. You can get copies of the final committee drafts of
the Fortran 95, 2003, and 2008 standards. There you will
learn that Fortran since Fortran 90 al
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2012, at 08:18, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
>
> > Very many years ago , when 2010 was a very distant future , I do not
> > remember the name of the writer , who wrote approximately :
> >
> > "In 2010 , there will be Fortr
On 11/02/2012 05:21 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:08:18 +1100
From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey"
To: Erich Dollansky
Subject: FORTRAN vs. Fortran (was: November 5th is Clang-Day)
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 12:21:03 +0700, Erich Doll
On 11/02/12 04:29, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Monday, November 5th I plan to commit the following patch to make
> clang the default compiler on i386 and amd64. Many people have worked
> long and hard to make this a reality and we're finally close enough to
> throw the switch. For many users the tra
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:21:56AM +0100, Michael Fuckner wrote:
>
> > is at http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/smep.3.patch .
> >
> > Please test.
>
> looks good (after changing the location of specialreg.h (on STABLE)
>
> do you need any output or something like that?
No, thank you, I do not
is at http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/smep.3.patch .
Please test.
looks good (after changing the location of specialreg.h (on STABLE)
do you need any output or something like that?
Regards,
Michael!
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing lis
$70.00
From: owner-freebsd-am...@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-am...@freebsd.org] on
behalf of Konstantin Belousov [kostik...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 8:13 AM
To: am...@freebsd.org; curr...@freebsd.org
Cc: a...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Small
From thera...@theravensnest.org Fri Nov 2 10:54:08 2012
On 2 Nov 2012, at 10:21, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> further development of
> FreeBSD/ia64 and FreeBSD/sparc64
> will probably suffer and then stop altogether
There is a SPARC64 back end for L
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:08:18 +1100
From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey"
To: Erich Dollansky
Subject: FORTRAN vs. Fortran (was: November 5th is Clang-Day)
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 12:21:03 +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Th
Hi Alexander,
Yes I've seen that. The problem with appending CONFIGURE_ARGS is that it
breaks some ports. Also by honouring TARGET_ARCH we're staying more inline
with current cross-build trends.
And as for jails/chroot Garrett, it might work but it's a pain and can't be
run along with oth
On 2 Nov 2012, at 08:18, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
> Very many years ago , when 2010 was a very distant future , I do not
> remember the name of the writer , who wrote approximately :
>
> "In 2010 , there will be Fortran , but a Fortran which may be different ."
I remember a talk in the mid '
On 2 Nov 2012, at 05:24, Jan Beich wrote:
>> Known Issues
>
> emulators/wine doesn't work with lib32 built by clang, probably due to
> wine bugs.
Is this still the case? There was an issue preventing WINE from working
because it required stricter stack alignment than clang provided by default,
Not sure if it helps, but maybe related:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2012-September/040428.html
--
Regards,
Alexander Yerenkow
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
31 matches
Mail list logo
