Em sex., 26 de jan. de 2024 às 09:21, Frode Nordahl <
frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
>
>
> fre. 26. jan. 2024, 13:03 skrev Roberto Bartzen Acosta <
> roberto.aco...@luizalabs.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> Em sex., 26 de jan. de 2024 às 04:37, Frode Nordahl <
>> frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
>>
fre. 26. jan. 2024, 13:03 skrev Roberto Bartzen Acosta <
roberto.aco...@luizalabs.com>:
>
>
> Em sex., 26 de jan. de 2024 às 04:37, Frode Nordahl <
> frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:44 PM Frode Nordahl
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > tor. 25. jan. 2024, 22:32
Em sex., 26 de jan. de 2024 às 04:37, Frode Nordahl <
frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:44 PM Frode Nordahl
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > tor. 25. jan. 2024, 22:32 skrev Roberto Bartzen Acosta <
> roberto.aco...@luizalabs.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Em qui., 25 de jan.
Em qui., 25 de jan. de 2024 às 18:45, Frode Nordahl <
frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
>
>
> tor. 25. jan. 2024, 22:32 skrev Roberto Bartzen Acosta <
> roberto.aco...@luizalabs.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> Em qui., 25 de jan. de 2024 às 17:01, Frode Nordahl <
>> frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
>>
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:44 PM Frode Nordahl
wrote:
>
>
>
> tor. 25. jan. 2024, 22:32 skrev Roberto Bartzen Acosta
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> Em qui., 25 de jan. de 2024 às 17:01, Frode Nordahl
>> escreveu:
>>>
>>> Apologies for the tardy response to this thread, freeze deadlines and
>>> PTO has prevent
tor. 25. jan. 2024, 22:32 skrev Roberto Bartzen Acosta <
roberto.aco...@luizalabs.com>:
>
>
> Em qui., 25 de jan. de 2024 às 17:01, Frode Nordahl <
> frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
>
>> Apologies for the tardy response to this thread, freeze deadlines and
>> PTO has prevented me from respo
Em qui., 25 de jan. de 2024 às 17:01, Frode Nordahl <
frode.nord...@canonical.com> escreveu:
> Apologies for the tardy response to this thread, freeze deadlines and
> PTO has prevented me from responding sooner.
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:14 PM Roberto Bartzen Acosta
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
Apologies for the tardy response to this thread, freeze deadlines and
PTO has prevented me from responding sooner.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:14 PM Roberto Bartzen Acosta
wrote:
>
>
>
> Em qua., 10 de jan. de 2024 às 15:37, Ilya Maximets
> escreveu:
> >
> > On 1/9/24 13:53, Simon Horman wrote:
Em qua., 10 de jan. de 2024 às 15:37, Ilya Maximets
escreveu:
>
> On 1/9/24 13:53, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 08:34:36AM -0300, Roberto Bartzen Acosta via
dev wrote:
> >> Current version of debian/rules simply uses the default lto GCC
> >> optimization settings during the link
On 1/9/24 13:53, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 08:34:36AM -0300, Roberto Bartzen Acosta via dev
> wrote:
>> Current version of debian/rules simply uses the default lto GCC
>> optimization settings during the linkage process.
>>
>> The main problem with this approach is that GCC on
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 08:34:36AM -0300, Roberto Bartzen Acosta via dev wrote:
> Current version of debian/rules simply uses the default lto GCC
> optimization settings during the linkage process.
>
> The main problem with this approach is that GCC on OS like Ubuntu
> Jammy, for example, can enab
Bleep bloop. Greetings Roberto Bartzen Acosta, I am a robot and I have tried
out your patch.
Thanks for your contribution.
I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
git-am:
error: patch failed: debian/rules:2
error: debian/rules: patch does not apply
error: Did
Current version of debian/rules simply uses the default lto GCC
optimization settings during the linkage process.
The main problem with this approach is that GCC on OS like Ubuntu
Jammy, for example, can enable the -flto=auto option during the
openvswitch building and linking process. In this case
13 matches
Mail list logo
