> === SPARC ===
>
> On SPARC, we fail to build fully - the runtime explodes with a SIGSEGV
> whilst compiling gacutil.exe. Log:
> http://retro.apebox.org/mono210/buildlog.sparc
>
> SPARC is one of the most popular "minority" architectures in Debian,
> and we would hate to lose it, especially whe
Hello Bit,
> whereby it was not possible to pass additional arguments to
> mono-service2 (if your executable required command-line arguments of
> it's own).
Thanks for the patch, I have committed it.
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@li
> I was thinking about using a helper function that does "the right thing"[tm],
> using sigaction if available, with a fallback to sigset and signal. A unified
> function that may be used in other parts of the code is probably not
> possible, since sigaction allows a number of flags that influe
Hi,
> === PowerPC ===
>
> On PowerPC, we fail to build fully - sn.exe keeps refusing to sign
> assemblies, which causes build failure. The only "unusual" thing in the
> build log is many CS8001 messages. On PowePC we must disable parallel
> mark, otherwise libgc does not build. Log:
> http://retr
Hi,
There is a relatively old, open bug (#527447) whereby it was not possible to
pass additional arguments to mono-service2 (if your executable required
command-line arguments of it's own). This patch addresses that issue.
Hope this helps,
-z
mono-service.cs.patch
Description: Binary data
We're having problems building Mono 2.10~rc1 for 4 out of the 9 Debian
architectures we build for (out of 14 arches in Debian overall). All of
these were fine on 2.6.7, the version in Debian 6.0
=== s/390 ===
As far as I can tell, Support for 31-bit s/390 is gone, and only 64-bit
zSeries (s390x)
Hi,
On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:11:13 Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have other concerns about this use of signal. Perhaps it
> should be using sigaction with the proper flags to configure how we
> want signals to be delivered instead.
>
> Miguel
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:52 P
Alright, I asked for a test case in the bug report.
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> Just a quick heads up.
>> Could someone please review this patch:
>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666245 (libgdiplus - fast
>> copy
>> path optimisations)?
>
> It would be nice to have a
Hello,
> Just a quick heads up.
> Could someone please review this patch:
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666245 (libgdiplus - fast copy
> path optimisations)?
It would be nice to have a test case that we can run to compare, but
other than that, it seems like a useful path to follow
