Hi,
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > But linux-image fails here:
> > > >
> > > > arch/m68k/math-emu/fp_scan.S: Assembler messages:
> > > > arch/m68k/math-emu/fp_scan.S:67: Error: Unknown operator -- statement
> > > > `getuser.b (%a0),%d0,fp_err_ua1,%a0' ignored
> > > > arc
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > > arch/m68k/math-emu/fp_scan.S: Assembler messages:
> > > > arch/m68k/math-emu/fp_scan.S:67: Error: Unknown operator -- statement
> > > > `getuser.b (%a0),%d0,fp_err_ua1,%a0' ignored
> > > > arch/m68k/math-emu/fp_scan.S:75: Error: Unkno
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > GNU assembler version 2.16.91 (m68k-linux-gnu) using BFD version 2.16.91
> > > 20060413 Debian GNU/Linux
> > > gcc version 4.1.2 20060613 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-5)
> > >
> > > But linux-image fails here:
>
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Finn Thain wrote:
> > GNU assembler version 2.16.91 (m68k-linux-gnu) using BFD version 2.16.91
> > 20060413 Debian GNU/Linux
> > gcc version 4.1.2 20060613 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-5)
> >
> > But linux-image fails here:
> >
> > arch/m68k/math-emu/fp_scan.S: Assembler
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 05:29:42PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> > > GNU assembler version 2.16.91 (m68k-linux-gnu) using BFD version 2.16.91
> > > 20060413 Debian GNU/Linux
> > > gcc version 4.1.2 20060613 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-5)
> > >
>
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 02:54:28PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it is lots of "fun". What was the failure? What versions of
> > binutils, gcc, glibc and kernel headers did you use?
>
> I tried to build it with cross-tool, binutils-2
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 02:54:28PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> Yes, it is lots of "fun". What was the failure? What versions of binutils,
> gcc, glibc and kernel headers did you use?
I tried to build it with cross-tool, binutils-2.16.1, gcc-4.0.3, glibc-2.3.6
Somebody suggested to me to use off
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:06:12PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > BTW the kernel team(
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:06:12PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> > > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches,
> > > I am not sure if t
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches,
> > I am not sure if that works for m68k, did anybody build a kernel with
> > gcc-4 already?
>
>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:27:09AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
>
> What is the HP machine you are talking about?
HP apollo Series 400, 68030 with I think 32MB RAM, and no harddisk at the
moment.
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:47:05PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> We have linux-images for amiga, atari, mac, mvme147, mvme16x, bvme6000, hp,
> q40, and sun3. Of those I can confirm that amiga and mac (on a Q840AV) are
> working, and atari does not, last I tried. About the others I have no
>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:48:51PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:34:10PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
>
> > So to enlighten me, kernel 2.6 on m68k only supports correctly Amiga
> > and a bit Mac, but it does not support Atari, BVME, MVME, and Q40/Q60
> > at all, doe
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:34:10PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:15:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> > > we still need kernels 2.2 and 2.4 for m68k: kernel 2.6 works well on
> > > my Quadra950
> >
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:34:10PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> So to enlighten me, kernel 2.6 on m68k only supports correctly Amiga
> and a bit Mac, but it does not support Atari, BVME, MVME, and Q40/Q60
> at all, does it?
As far as I know, that's correct.
> In that case, those unsupported s
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:15:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> > we still need kernels 2.2 and 2.4 for m68k: kernel 2.6 works well on
> > my Quadra950
>
> Oh? It doesn't on mine. Can you point me towards a working kernel image?
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:36:37PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >>> It will be hardcoded to -4.0 with the next upload. And no, going to -4.1
> > >>> is no solution.
> > That explains it all, doesn't it? I am still wondering if we _have_ to use
> > 4.x at all, I switched only reluctantly from 2.95
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:42:25AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:18:48AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> > > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> How about I drop everything but amiga and mac from the official linux-images
> for now? I can still cross-build all the other arches, but with just two
> arches, that actually work, I would even do a native build, so we would
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> we still need kernels 2.2 and 2.4 for m68k: kernel 2.6 works well on
> my Quadra950
Oh? It doesn't on mine. Can you point me towards a working kernel image?
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:42:25AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I
> > > am
> > > not sure if that works for m68k, did anybody build a kernel with gcc-4
> > > already?
> > Why gcc-4.0 when 4.1 is now the default?
>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:18:48AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I am
> > not sure if that works for m68k, did anybody build a kernel with gcc-4
>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I am
> not sure if that works for m68k, did anybody build a kernel with gcc-4
> already?
Why gcc-4.0 when 4.1 is now the default?
Maybe someone of the m6
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 09:32:10PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
>
> > I think you are all aware the m68k port can be dropped for etch
> > if nothing is done to speed up m68k buildd network at least, but
> > unfortunately, not at
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 09:32:10PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> Whether or not m68k is a release candidate for etch depends largely on
> whether or not we can get caught up and stay caught up.
> Apparently that means we need more fast buildds and more porters.
It would be nice to have all bu
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> I think you are all aware the m68k port can be dropped for etch
> if nothing is done to speed up m68k buildd network at least, but
> unfortunately, not at last. Though, I do not know for sure whether
> we still need kernels 2.2 and
Hi there,
After discussing it on #debian-devel with Wouter, I propose the
creation of #debian-68k on irc.oftc.net for interested people, both
developers and users, DD and non-DD. Feel free to join!
I intend to work on the Coldfire port with other porters as soon as
Sven lends me his board at the
27 matches
Mail list logo
