On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 12:35 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 17:05 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> > On 10/4/2011 3:03 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
>> > > sysprof will not build properly without this defined
>> > >
>> > > Sign
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 12:35 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 17:05 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> > On 10/4/2011 3:03 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
>> > > sysprof will not build properly without this defined
>> > >
>> > > Signe
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 12:35 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 17:05 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On 10/4/2011 3:03 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> > > sysprof will not build properly without this defined
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
> > > ---
> > > No comments on o
On 10/05/2011 10:06 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
this is a gcc built-in define I wonder why you need to add it explicitly
Are you sure? Is the built-in define not __powerpc64__ ?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
>>> this is a gcc built-in define I wonder why you need to add it explicitly
>>
>> Are you sure? Is the built-in define not __powerpc64__ ?
>
> Further investigation:
>
> [ma
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
>> this is a gcc built-in define I wonder why you need to add it explicitly
>
> Are you sure? Is the built-in define not __powerpc64__ ?
Further investigation:
[mattsm@right build_p5020ds-64b_release (testing $)]$
./tmp/sysroots/x86_64-linux/
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 17:05 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On 10/4/2011 3:03 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
>> > sysprof will not build properly without this defined
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
>> > ---
>> > No comments on original
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 17:05 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 3:03 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> > sysprof will not build properly without this defined
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
> > ---
> > No comments on original patch sent
> >
> > meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
>> b/meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
>> index 10bde04..271b5d8 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
>> @@
On 10/4/2011 3:03 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
sysprof will not build properly without this defined
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
---
No comments on original patch sent
meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/m
sysprof will not build properly without this defined
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
---
No comments on original patch sent
meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
b/meta/r
11 matches
Mail list logo