On Wednesday 02 March 2011 18:01:19 Etienne Robillard wrote:
> On 02/03/11 11:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:00:26 am Etienne Robillard wrote:
> >> On 02/25/2011 07:31, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 25, 2011 12:47:12 Etienne Robillard wrote:
> >>>
TB --- 2011-03-03 06:30:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-03 06:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2011-03-03 06:30:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 06:30:21 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 06:30:21 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:26 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:26 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:26 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:43 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:43 - /usr
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:34 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:34 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:34 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:55 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:26:55 - /u
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:33:14 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:33:14 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:33:14 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:33:28 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 17:33:28 - /usr
On 02/03/11 11:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:00:26 am Etienne Robillard wrote:
>
>> On 02/25/2011 07:31, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 25, 2011 12:47:12 Etienne Robillard wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 25/02/11 06:18 AM, Bernhard Schmid
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:00:26 am Etienne Robillard wrote:
> On 02/25/2011 07:31, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> > On Friday, February 25, 2011 12:47:12 Etienne Robillard wrote:
> >
> >> On 25/02/11 06:18 AM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, February 25, 2011 11:03:04 Etien
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:36:58 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 02/28/11 09:20, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, February 28, 2011 9:49:07 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> >> BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future
> >> merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is
On 03/02/11 10:06, TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro wrote:
In article<4d6bb5e3.6020...@freebsd.org>
Nathan Whitehorn writes:
BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a
future merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace
sysinstall on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any
In article <4d6bb5e3.6020...@freebsd.org>
Nathan Whitehorn writes:
> BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a
> future merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace
> sysinstall on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would
> like to pull this sw
On 02/25/2011 07:31, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 12:47:12 Etienne Robillard wrote:
On 25/02/11 06:18 AM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 11:03:04 Etienne Robillard wrote:
On 25/02/11 04:11 AM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 02:56:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> Author: kib
> Date: Wed Mar 2 14:56:58 2011
> New Revision: 219178
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219178
>
> Log:
> Fix a bug in the result of manual assembly.
>
> Reported by:Stefan Grundmann
>
On 02/28/11 09:20, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, February 28, 2011 9:49:07 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future
merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall
on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections,
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Robert Watson wrote:
Jon and my current plan is to merge, over the next few months, various
kernel features required to support Capscium sandboxing for FreeBSD 9.0:
first capability mode support (this week), then capabilities themselves
(which are a form of file descriptor
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:58:00AM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This sound great :)
>
> SIGILL is raised when the program try to execute an assembly code that the
> CPU
> cannot execute. It mean that the library or the binary is miscompiled.
>
Not necessarily, the sparc64 code
Hello,
This sound great :)
SIGILL is raised when the program try to execute an assembly code that the CPU
cannot execute. It mean that the library or the binary is miscompiled.
Regards,
On Tuesday 01 March 2011 20:20:58 Marius Strobl wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:31:16AM +0100, Alexandre
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 02:28:54AM +, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Mon Feb 28 11, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > hi there,
> >
> > I have a patch that shrinks boot2 some:
> >
> > 1) it switches kname to be just a pointer instead of an array
> >thus avoiding a couple of memcpy()s
> >
> > 2) it ch
17 matches
Mail list logo
