Corinna Schultz wrote:
Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does anybody (other than sh4) tried posix_fadvise tests?
Carmelo, I was finally able to test this today. The tests are still
failing for me (I'm on ppc32), though for different reasons than before
:-) . I have not tried the
Carmelo, I was finally able to test this today. The tests are still
failing for me (I'm on ppc32), though for different reasons than
before :-) . I have not tried the ppc workaround patch yet, though.
I'll let you know.
Is it the lseek issue ?
___
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:55:56PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Index: libc/sysdeps/linux/sh/bits/syscalls.h
===
--- libc/sysdeps/linux/sh/bits/syscalls.h (revision 23401)
+++ libc/sysdeps/linux/sh/bits/syscalls.h
Paul Mundt wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:55:56PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Index: libc/sysdeps/linux/sh/bits/syscalls.h
===
--- libc/sysdeps/linux/sh/bits/syscalls.h(revision 23401)
+++
Carmelo, I was finally able to test this today. The tests are still
failing for me (I'm on ppc32), though for different reasons than
before :-) . I have not tried the ppc workaround patch yet, though.
I'll let you know.
Is it the lseek issue ?
fork10.c:66: error: conflicting types for
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:22:51PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Paul Mundt wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:55:56PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Index: libc/sysdeps/linux/sh/bits/syscalls.h
===
---
Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does anybody (other than sh4) tried posix_fadvise tests?
Carmelo, I was finally able to test this today. The tests are still
failing for me (I'm on ppc32), though for different reasons than
before :-) . I have not tried the ppc workaround patch yet,
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:29:09PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Absolutely agreed. IIRC I should now use __inline__ keyword, right?
yes.
Merged. Thanks for review ;-)
fails to
Fathi Boudra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:29:09PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Absolutely agreed. IIRC I should now use
fails to build on my config.
LD libuClibc-0.9.29.so http://libuClibc-0.9.29.so
libc/libc_so.a(posix_fadvise64.os): In function `posix_fadvise64':
posix_fadvise64.c:(.text+0x18): undefined reference to
`__illegally_sized_syscall_arg2'
posix_fadvise64.c:(.text+0x1c): undefined reference to
Fathi Boudra wrote:
fails to build on my config.
LD libuClibc-0.9.29.so http://libuClibc-0.9.29.so
http://libuClibc-0.9.29.so
libc/libc_so.a(posix_fadvise64.os): In function `posix_fadvise64':
posix_fadvise64.c:(.text+0x18): undefined reference
powerpc needs a specific implementation because it expects 8 bytes long
variable. Look recent messages, as I said, regarding pread_wirte
implementation.
I found a related patch submitted by wade berrier and commited by bernhard:
Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Corinna Schultz wrote:
Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
a colleague of mine is right now working to produce a patch for
posix_fadvise to fix all LTP tests using
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:55:56PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Corinna Schultz wrote:
Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
a colleague of mine is right now working to produce a patch for
posix_fadvise to fix all LTP tests using posix_fadvise[64].
Indeed LTP tests expect that, when
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:55:56PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Corinna Schultz wrote:
Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
a colleague of mine is right now working to produce a patch for
posix_fadvise to fix all LTP tests using posix_fadvise[64].
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:29:09PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Absolutely agreed. IIRC I should now use __inline__ keyword, right?
yes.
___
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Corinna Schultz wrote:
Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
a colleague of mine is right now working to produce a patch for
posix_fadvise to fix all LTP tests using posix_fadvise[64].
Indeed LTP
Corinna Schultz wrote:
Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
a colleague of mine is right now working to produce a patch for
posix_fadvise to fix all LTP tests using posix_fadvise[64].
Indeed LTP tests expect that, when posix_fadvise[64] fails,
it should return as return value an error
18 matches
Mail list logo
