On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:44:59PM +0200, Haakon Innerdal wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Haakon Innerdal wrote:
> Call Trace: [<00014c78>] _060_fpsp_effadd+0xbc20/0xd518
> [<0001afa8>] printk+0x0/0xee
> [<00269aba>] free_all_bootmem+0xa/0x10
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Haakon Innerdal wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:32:32PM +0200, Haakon Innerdal wrote:
> > > > Is there any special magic to apply if I want to run a 2.6.x-amiga
> > >
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:06:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:04:44PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > > Should I try to ensure that the 2.6-kernel is built with
> > > > gcc-2.95? is
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:06:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:04:44PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > Should I try to ensure that the 2.6-kernel is built with gcc-2.95? is it
> > > even possible to build 2.6.x with gcc-2.95? (I could try, but each kernel
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:04:44PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > Should I try to ensure that the 2.6-kernel is built with gcc-2.95? is it
> > even possible to build 2.6.x with gcc-2.95? (I could try, but each kernel
> > build is taking about half a day...)
>
> IIRC I built 2.6 with gc
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Haakon Innerdal wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:32:32PM +0200, Haakon Innerdal wrote:
> > > Is there any special magic to apply if I want to run a 2.6.x-amiga kernel?
> > > (2.6.8-4 was the latest I tried)
> > >
> > > F
6 matches
Mail list logo