Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez wrote:
Hi all.
Hola Jose,
This is my first message.
I have a machine with GNU/Hurd installed, and i decided
try Kaffe with it. i downloaded kaffe-1.0.7.tar.gz from
http://www.kaffe.org and do './configure', 'make' and
'make install' without any aparent problem.
I
Hi,
Every friday afternoon, I set cron to get the latest from cvs, compile it on
several platforms. This friday could be special, because m68k/netbsd are
supposed to pass this automatic test.
But, this (Friday, JST) morning I noticed the IIci on which netbsd is now
running had no response ;-< Loo
Gustavo Guillermo Perez wrote:
Here is the patch tested and attached
The Changes:
Allow Kaffe to be builded on uClibc just defining:
CFGLAGS="-DUCLIBC"
before ./configure
enclosing the use of __libc_stack_end, into a preproccessor block.
Thank you very much for the patch. I'll comment below.
Best R
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Hi Noa,
Hi Noa, Hi Dalibor,
Noa Resare wrote:
For some reason beyond my understanding I decided that I should devote
some of my very few hacking cycles to kaffe. However, being sort of a
newbie in the JVM hacking business I didn't feel comfortable doing
anything before I could
PatchSet 5150
Date: 2004/09/10 00:34:21
Author: dalibor
Branch: HEAD
Tag: (none)
Log:
Fixed jthreadedRecvfrom timeout handling
2004-09-09 Noa Resare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* kaffe/kaffevm/systems/unix-pthreads/syscalls.c:
(jthreadedRecvfrom) fixed timeout handling
Members:
Hi Noa,
Noa Resare wrote:
For some reason beyond my understanding I decided that I should devote
some of my very few hacking cycles to kaffe. However, being sort of a
newbie in the JVM hacking business I didn't feel comfortable doing
anything before I could regression test any contributions. So I h
Kaffe CVS wrote:
PatchSet 5149
Date: 2004/09/09 20:33:17
Author: dalibor
Branch: HEAD
Tag: (none)
Log:
Build fixes for kjc
Thanks to Laszlo & Gustavo, who submitted very similar patches, the
build with kjc works again. It takes approximately 200M to build rt.jar
on my box.
I've also added anot
PatchSet 5149
Date: 2004/09/09 20:33:17
Author: dalibor
Branch: HEAD
Tag: (none)
Log:
Build fixes for kjc
2004-09-09 Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libraries/javalib/rebuildLib.in: Increased memory available
to kjc to 512M. That should prevent it from running out of memor
>
> Hi,
>
> how can I step inside the file .../kaffe/kaffevm/kaffe.def while
> debugging? when I do a 'step', gdb just shows the line number and says
> "in file kaffe.def". It doesn't show the code that's being executed. I
> checked that the Makefile in the same directory has the -g option. W
Hi,
Could anyone with a Darwin test if this is really necessary in
config/*/darwin/md.h ? It happens to be defined when SIGINFO was not
found but finally I don't know if we should just remove the line now.
#undef HAVE_SIGALTSTACK
Cheers,
Guilhem Lavaux.
_
PatchSet 5148
Date: 2004/09/09 18:46:09
Author: guilhem
Branch: HEAD
Tag: (none)
Log:
Fixes for Darwin.
* config/i386/darwin/md.h, config/powerpc/darwin/md.h
(SIGNAL_ARGS, SIGNAL_CONTEXT_POINTER, GET_SIGNAL_CONTEXT_POINTER,
SIGNAL_PC, STACK_POINTER): Updated to avoid sigi
Hi,
how can I step inside the file .../kaffe/kaffevm/kaffe.def while debugging? when I do a 'step', gdb just shows the line number and says "in file kaffe.def". It doesn't show the code that's being executed. I checked that the Makefile in the same directory has the -g option. What needs to be do
Well,
I don't know what it does, so I can't object one way or another. I
think that if we can make the file simpler, the better off we will be.
Michael
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:26:46 +0200, Guilhem Lavaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Franz wrote:
> > If there is no objections, I would li
Michael Franz wrote:
If there is no objections, I would like to have the original changes
committed to CVS.
Hi Michael,
I think that 'if defined(SA_SIGINFO)' is not necessary anymore. So I'll
delete it in the CVS version. If you have an objection I'll put it again. ;)
Regards,
Guilhem Lavaux.
On
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> A very crude (and factually wrong, anyway, but as we are guessing
> upper bounds here, the advantages of RISC systems do not do harm)
> estimation would be to look at the lowest CPU megahertz counts people
> are testing on: if it takes 5 seconds
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Michael Franz wrote:
> I didn't mean to imply that PowerPC and x86 are the only CPUs, it just
> happens to be the only ones I use and currently the 300 seconds seem
> too long.
>
> What exactly is the timeout of 300 for?
That's a strange part. "Too Long". Possibly instea
Michael Franz wrote:
If there is no objections, I would like to have the original changes
committed to CVS.
Hi Michael,
If it works for you, I'll commit it in CVS today.
Thank you very much !
Regards,
Guilhem Lavaux.
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:53:03 -0400, Michael Franz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All
17 matches
Mail list logo
