On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 01:13:08 + (UTC) Duncan wrote:
> Andrew Savchenko posted on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:59:23 +0300 as excerpted:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:17:35 -0800 Christopher Head wrote:
> >> On January 20, 2015 12:47:03 AM PST, Alexis Ballier
> >> wrote:
> >> >So, you're telling me that
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 01:13:08 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
(a lot)
Thank you, Duncan. You explained by position perfectly.
--
Christopher Head
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Andrew Savchenko posted on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:59:23 +0300 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:17:35 -0800 Christopher Head wrote:
>> On January 20, 2015 12:47:03 AM PST, Alexis Ballier
>> wrote:
>> >So, you're telling me that if you have a list of 90 cpu extensions,
>> >you will from time to
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:03:27 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
> >> >> IMHO it would be a very good idea to follow the convention of
> >> >> the "flag" names in /proc/cpuinfo and add all flags supported
> >> >>
Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> >>
>> >> More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
>> >> IMHO it would be a very good idea to follow the convention of the
>> >> "flag" names in /proc/cpuinfo and add all flags supported
>> >> there as possible USE-flags, no matter, whether they are currently
>> >> u
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:50:25 +0100
"viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Il 15/01/2015 11:30, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:15 + (UTC)
> > Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >
> >> Christopher Head wrote:
> >>> All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
> >>> fine if no
Il 15/01/2015 11:30, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:15 + (UTC)
> Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> Christopher Head wrote:
>>> All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
>>> fine if no package actually uses the feature yet.
>> ++
>>
>> More precisely: When chan
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:15 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Christopher Head wrote:
> >
> > All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
> > fine if no package actually uses the feature yet.
>
> ++
>
> More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
> IMHO it would be a very
Christopher Head wrote:
>
> All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
> fine if no package actually uses the feature yet.
++
More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
IMHO it would be a very good idea to follow the convention of the
"flag" names in /proc/cpuinfo and add a
