On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 00:39 +0100, Mirco Bauer wrote:
> So we are back to, it never failed to build on cats, but always did on
> netwinder.
Mm, strange. I tried to build it by hand on smackdown and it failed
again there:
Creating ../../build/deps/net_2_0_corlib.dll.makefrag ...
make[8]: Leaving
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 21:07 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 09:09 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Ok, is there some other difference at the instruction set level between the
> > netwinder and cats systems?
>
> No, the instruction sets are the same. FWIW, though, smackdown i
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 09:09 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok, is there some other difference at the instruction set level between the
> netwinder and cats systems?
No, the instruction sets are the same. FWIW, though, smackdown is
actually a cats, not a netwinder, and the build seems to be fail
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 04:27:33PM +0200, Mirco Bauer wrote:
> As said I am not a porter, so I don't know the difference between cats
> and netwinder, but AFAIK cats is v4l and netwinder is v3l.
>
> Upstream tests and only has access to arm v5l and can't reproduce this
> problem, as seen in the up
Just to clarify this all current ARM build daemons are v4 architectures
this roughly breaks down as :
processors marked ARM7 are v3
processors marked strongarm or ARM9 are v4
In general ARM CPU core versions are upward compatible, we generally
build for v3 as it means binarys will execute for an
5 matches
Mail list logo
