On Tuesday 04 August 2009 15:28:04 Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 22 July 2009 10:49:00 Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> >>> As described in thread
> >>> http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2009-July/042670.html, uClibc
> >>> build is currently
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 10:07:38 Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:43:21 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 July 2009 02:25:03 Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:24:25 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > i'm guessing your syscall.S is doing so
On Monday 27 July 2009 21:36:48 Rob Landley wrote:
> I don't understand the difference between ARCH_HAS_MMU and ARCH_USE_MMU.
> (For a kernel, sure. For a C library, not so much.) As far as I can tell,
> there isn't one, and ARCH_HAS_MMU has been obsoleted in favor of
> ARCH_USE_MMU.
the HAS op
On Tuesday 11 August 2009 17:09:28 James Coleman wrote:
> _exit() takes 1 parameter not 0. In this case it the first parameter is
> now set to 0. Before this change the exit code was random (depending on
> arch).
thanks, ive merged this and fixed handling of the error field while i was at
it.
On (13/08/09 07:11), Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 01 August 2009 05:26:11 Khem Raj wrote:
> > --- a/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/sysdep.h
> > +++ b/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/sysdep.h
> > @@ -305,11 +305,13 @@ __local_syscall_error:
On Thursday 13 August 2009 12:03:19 Khem Raj wrote:
> On (13/08/09 07:11), Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 August 2009 05:26:11 Khem Raj wrote:
> > > --- a/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/sysdep.h
> > > +++ b/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/sysdep.h
> > > @@ -305,11
On (13/08/09 14:32), Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 13 August 2009 12:03:19 Khem Raj wrote:
> > On (13/08/09 07:11), Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 01 August 2009 05:26:11 Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > --- a/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/sysdep.h
> > > > +++ b/libpthread/nptl/
First off, yes, I know that our version of uClibc (0.9.28) and gcc
(4.2/snapshot 20090325) aren't the most recent.
That said, yes, they've been working up to now, and yes, we plan on
updating them as soon as we get our current release done.
What I'm seeing is below.
I've not followed linux kerne
On Thursday 13 August 2009 21:00:43 Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
> First off, yes, I know that our version of uClibc (0.9.28) and gcc
> (4.2/snapshot 20090325) aren't the most recent.
>
> I've not followed linux kernel development closely enough to know if any
> of the signals stuff changed between
