Re: ruby2.2 fuckup

2015-11-21 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Laurent Vivier dixit: >Le 21/11/2015 13:07, Andreas Schwab a icrit : >> Does that include the FPU emulation? > >I don't know: FPU emulation is on 96 bits (in fact 80...) and can have >some bugs (I didn't fix the NaN format for the moment). In this case, e.g. Python interpreters and related things

Re: ruby2.2 fuckup (was Re: Log for attempted build of libselinux_2.4-3 on m68k (dist=unstable))

2015-11-21 Thread Laurent Vivier
Le 21/11/2015 13:07, Andreas Schwab a écrit : > Laurent Vivier writes: > >> I think the instruction emulation is at the same level as Aranym, > > Does that include the FPU emulation? I don't know: FPU emulation is on 96 bits (in fact 80...) and can have some bugs (I didn't fix the NaN format

Re: ruby2.2 fuckup (was Re: Log for attempted build of libselinux_2.4-3 on m68k (dist=unstable))

2015-11-21 Thread Andreas Schwab
Laurent Vivier writes: > I think the instruction emulation is at the same level as Aranym, Does that include the FPU emulation? Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely differen

Re: ruby2.2 fuckup (was Re: Log for attempted build of libselinux_2.4-3 on m68k (dist=unstable))

2015-11-21 Thread Laurent Vivier
Le 21/11/2015 08:28, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit : > On 11/20/2015 11:11 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> On 11/20/2015 10:50 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: ruby currently broken on m68k >> >> It's no longer broken. I already uploaded a fixed version to >> 'unreleased'. A new gcc-5

Re: ruby2.2 fuckup (was Re: Log for attempted build of libselinux_2.4-3 on m68k (dist=unstable))

2015-11-21 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 11/21/2015 12:08 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote: > You should keep some Aranyms and real hardwares: qemu-m68k is not perfect. Not really possible to keep the Aranyms. They take up space in my office which I and especially my boss want to get rid of. The qemu-m68k stuff can be easily set up on our VMW

Re: building with qemu (was Re: ruby2.2 fuckup (was Re: Log for attempted build of libselinux_2.4-3 on m68k (dist=unstable)))

2015-11-21 Thread Finn Thain
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 11/20/2015 11:11 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > > > A new gcc-5 with updated dependencies is following > > tomorrow morning. Build takes ~10 hours with qemu-m68k. > > Uploaded. > > Build took exactly 10 hours and 4 minutes.

Re: building with qemu (was Re: ruby2.2 fuckup (was Re: Log for attempted build of libselinux_2.4-3 on m68k (dist=unstable)))

2015-11-21 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 11/21/2015 11:54 AM, Finn Thain wrote: > You would still need either Aranym or physical 68k hardware to test a > Linux binary (that is, the kernel). Don't worry, the hardware isn't going anywhere :). Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org