Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> we don't have objc support in gcc41, but nobody complained since i
> imported/switched the default version, so I figured nobody uses it. If
> you do, please speak up! (And if possible add the support)
The user who mailed to me privately about objc is using gcc3
I have basic vkernel functionality working for userland on leaf,
for SOC and other developers.
However, to make it useful there needs to be user-accessible
network support. Otherwise the vkernel has no real way of
copying files into and out of its running image. I am writin
Hasso Tepper wrote:
> Hasso Tepper wrote:
>> And while at looking what needs to removed I discovered that we have
>> Objc support as well in gcc34. It's compiled by default, but we don't
>> have even /usr/bin/cc1objc. Any objections to remove it as well?
>
> Nevermind. I received already one mail
:> access the deleted directory entries. This wouldn't be an 'as-of' style
:> access... it would be accessing all the active and deleted directory
:> entries regardless of when they became deleted.
:
:What if I deleted a directory and re-created it?
:
:Best Regards,
:Ben Cadieux
> access the deleted directory entries. This wouldn't be an 'as-of' style
> access... it would be accessing all the active and deleted directory
> entries regardless of when they became deleted.
What if I deleted a directory and re-created it?
Best Regards,
Ben Cadieux
Hasso Tepper wrote:
> And while at looking what needs to removed I discovered that we have
> Objc support as well in gcc34. It's compiled by default, but we don't
> have even /usr/bin/cc1objc. Any objections to remove it as well?
Nevermind. I received already one mail from user that he actually us
:Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
:> Hasso Tepper wrote:
:> > OK, much clearer now. So, now I think that best approach is
:> > completely opposite. Basically, there are two options:
:> >
:> > a) Remove fortran from the base.
:>
:> +1 if f2c works well.
:
:My brief experience shows that it does.
:
:Hm, how would that work, if I want it to behave like the prune command?
:I'd need to traverse a lot of filesystem trees, to just determine which
:files were deleted.
:
:Imagine:
:
: compare /mnt with /[EMAIL PROTECTED] and prune deleted files.
:
: compare /[EMAIL PROTECTED] with /[EMAIL PROTE
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Hasso Tepper wrote:
> > OK, much clearer now. So, now I think that best approach is
> > completely opposite. Basically, there are two options:
> >
> > a) Remove fortran from the base.
>
> +1 if f2c works well.
My brief experience shows that it does.
And while at
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Yeah, I was thinking about wildcarding as well.
> :
> :But is it possible to implement it within cmd_prune.c, or do I have to
> :modify the ioctl kernel code? If done in cmd_prune.c, I somehow have to
> :iterate over all deleted files and call the prune command for it.
> :
Hasso Tepper wrote:
> OK, much clearer now. So, now I think that best approach is completely
> opposite. Basically, there are two options:
>
> a) Remove fortran from the base.
+1 if f2c works well.
cheers
simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Rumko wrote:
> Well ... the biggest problem isn't that we don't have fortran in our
> gcc-4.1 but that pkgsrc checks for fortran only by checking if the
> files exist not by actually running/testing if it actually works (try
> running g77 -v or f77 -v without setting CCVER to gcc34) afaik (if i
> r
12 matches
Mail list logo
