On 07/07/11 20:41, Peter Mazinger wrote:
> Hi,
>> This fixes a problem identified by Mark Salter on C6X big-endian
>> systems. We should not use "unsigned short int mode"; the proper
>> type is in theory mode_t, but here we need to use kernel_mode_t
>> since this structure is used for communicatio
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 16:29, Peter Mazinger wrote:
> Von: Khem Raj
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > what does seem to work is manually adding "(EXPERIMENTAL)" or
>> > "(DEPRECATED)" to the Kconfig line of text.
>>
>> yes that seems a good approach
>
> Even if I do not
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:04:36 -0700
> Von: Khem Raj
> An: Mike Frysinger
> CC: uclibc@uclibc.org
> Betreff: Re: proposal for CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 15:47, Peter Mazinger wr
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 15:47, Peter Mazinger wrote:
>> I am proposing to add CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to guard all config options that
>
> ive found this option to be wholly useless in the kernel. i dont see
> it being any different in any other
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Peter Mazinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Mike Frysinger
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 17:17, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> >> master is now potentially open to
>> >> - merge future into master
>> >> - merge prelink into maste
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 15:47, Peter Mazinger wrote:
> I am proposing to add CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to guard all config options that
ive found this option to be wholly useless in the kernel. i dont see
it being any different in any other project.
what does seem to work is manually adding "(EXPERIMEN
Hello,
I am proposing to add CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to guard all config options that
we know that they are obsolete (COMPAT_ATEXIT),non-working (LT_NEW), archs that
for ex. would need crt1* but provide only crt0 or have other problems,
everything that is not building and needs more work to get them
Hi,
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Mike Frysinger
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 17:17, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> >> master is now potentially open to
> >> - merge future into master
> >> - merge prelink into master
> >> - merge ldso-future into master
> >> (in this order).
> >>
Hi,
> This fixes a problem identified by Mark Salter on C6X big-endian
> systems. We should not use "unsigned short int mode"; the proper type is
> in theory mode_t, but here we need to use kernel_mode_t since this
> structure is used for communication with the kernel, and some targets
> have a 16-
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:15, Gilles wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:12:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> the upside is that Gentoo provides up-to-date packages
>> for everything while uClinux-dist does not.
>
> Right, apps in uClinux-dist can be a bit old. Can we expect a
> Blackfin-capable Gentoo
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 05:10, Ed W wrote:
> Mike - just for interest, what do you do to run an up to date linux
> install on blackfin? I see you posting commits to kernel and uclibc for
> blackfin, so you presumably run something fairly bleeding edge? How
> should technical end users develop agains
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 17:17, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> master is now potentially open to
>> - merge future into master
>> - merge prelink into master
>> - merge ldso-future into master
>> (in this order).
>>
>> To do this, ideally
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:12:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger
wrote:
> the upside is that Gentoo provides up-to-date packages
> for everything while uClinux-dist does not.
Right, apps in uClinux-dist can be a bit old. Can we expect a
Blackfin-capable Gentoo-embedded in the coming months, or does it
require m
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:06, Gilles wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:02:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>die. the kernel coming from uClinux.org nowadays is simply another
>>vendor kernel ... it's full of patches to add drivers, boards, and fix
>>bugs in random arches. you can take the kernel fro
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:02:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger
wrote:
>die. the kernel coming from uClinux.org nowadays is simply another
>vendor kernel ... it's full of patches to add drivers, boards, and fix
>bugs in random arches. you can take the kernel from kernel.org and
>run it on a Blackfin system un
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:03:41 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni
wrote:
>You're correct, Buildroot is a possible alternative to uClinux-dist,
>not uClinux. I was in fact replying to your question about
>gentoo-embedded.
Thanks for the clarification.
___
uClibc mail
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 20:01, Gilles wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:11:24 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Pardon my newbie question, but I thought Buildroot was just a set of
> Makefiles to build an image that included the kernel and some
> applications, ie. it wasn't specific to a Linux source co
This fixes the internal __dns_lookup to get a h_errno pointer so
it works nicely with the _r variants. Additionally the function is
modified to permanent error if the static buffer lengths are not
enough. And finally it fixed to return TRY_AGAIN if the nameservers
timeout.
res_search is fixed to c
This fixes a problem identified by Mark Salter on C6X big-endian
systems. We should not use "unsigned short int mode"; the proper type is
in theory mode_t, but here we need to use kernel_mode_t since this
structure is used for communication with the kernel, and some targets
have a 16-bit kernel_mod
Hi,
I built the previous version of uClibc for Cortex-M3 without problem
using the CodeSourcery toolchain.
What KERNEL_HEADERS are you using?
It seems you pointed to the pristine kernel tree, that's may be a
problem.
Try to run "make export-headers" or something in the kernel tree to
prepare hea
Hello,
I'm attempting to compile uClibc for the ARM Cortex M3 version of
Linux described here (http://www.linux-arm.org/LinuxKernel/LinuxM3).
The kernel builds fine, however when I come to compile uClibc I
receive the following error:
CC libc/sysdeps/linux/arm/ioperm.os
In file included from ./in
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> Judging from uClibc's sources, support for these calls are entirely
>> missing, even though their prototypes exist in arpa/nameserv.h.
>>
>> Is anyone working on implementing this?
>>
>
> I do
Le Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:01:49 +0200,
Gilles a écrit :
> Pardon my newbie question, but I thought Buildroot was just a set of
> Makefiles to build an image that included the kernel and some
> applications, ie. it wasn't specific to a Linux source code.
You're correct, Buildroot is a possible alter
23 matches
Mail list logo
