> >> > just wanted to ask what the current situation on WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL is?
> >> > it
> >> > seems the option gets completely ignored after a recent commit.
I thought that Alex was going to follow up on this (cf.
http://markmail.org/message/bkbygrx5z5ascukh ) with Warner.
> >> > should src.co
Hi all again!
I've just committed some more fixes to TX power calibration for the AR9220
and AR9280.
I -think- I have all of the radio setup correct now for the AR5416, AR9160,
AR9220 and AR9280.
If you're using any of these, especially if you're using the AR9220/AR9280
(and doubly so oif you're
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Thu Mar 10 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
>> > hi there,
>> >
>> > just wanted to ask what the current situation on WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL is? it
>> > seems the option gets completely igno
hi there,
just wanted to ask what the current situation on WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL is? it
seems the option gets completely ignored after a recent commit.
should src.conf be adjusted to mention that WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL == noop or
should the option be completely removed?
also in usr.sbin/Makefile, the s
On Thu Mar 10 11, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Thu Mar 10 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 2011-03-09 22:18, David Schultz wrote:
> > >The proliferation of -mno-sse -mno-sse2 -mno-sse3 options in the
> > >makefiles is probably not needed: I'm pretty sure -mno-sse implies
> > >the other two, unless -m
Hi everyone,
we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc,
ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite.
Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors
and we have tried different -march= flags to compare binary performance
of t
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:58:30 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:20:58AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:24:36 pm Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >> > On 2011-03-09 14:23, John Baldwin wrote
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:20:58AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:24:36 pm Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> > On 2011-03-09 14:23, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > >> gcc nor clang emits any code to initialize static type foo =
On Thu Mar 10 11, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Here is a base gcc upgrade to the latest GPLv2 version (rev. 127959).
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/head-gcc-422-prerelease.patch
>
> Open questions:
> Do we want the "4.2.2 prerelase 20070831" version tag or stick to "4.2.1
> 20070831"?
i'd
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:20:58AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:24:36 pm Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 2011-03-09 14:23, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >> gcc nor clang emits any code to initialize static type foo = 0;
> > >> because it's expected that BSS is zeroed, which is
On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:24:36 pm Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2011-03-09 14:23, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> gcc nor clang emits any code to initialize static type foo = 0;
> >> because it's expected that BSS is zeroed, which is not the case
> >> in boot2 so we have to initialize that explicitly
>
Dear Steve, Adam, and Andriy;
Thank you very much for your quick replies.
We could solve our problems on this matter.
Thank you again.
Best regards,
Hideki Yamamoto
2011/3/10 Andriy Gapon :
> on 10/03/2011 05:45 Steve Kargl said the following:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:56:22AM +0900, Hideki
Here is a base gcc upgrade to the latest GPLv2 version (rev. 127959).
http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/head-gcc-422-prerelease.patch
Open questions:
Do we want the "4.2.2 prerelase 20070831" version tag or stick to "4.2.1
20070831"?
Testing and comments are welcome.
Originally suggested by
on 10/03/2011 05:45 Steve Kargl said the following:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:56:22AM +0900, Hideki Yamamoto wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are interested in realtime application and CPU affinity.
>> After googling pthread_setaffinity_np, I have found that it appeared in 7.2.
>> But I cannot find it by
Hi,
I'm using sysutils/freebsd-snapshot to make periodic ZFS backup snapshot
and this soft is broken since the upgrade of my pool to ZFSv28.
After some debugging it appears that "zfs list" behaviour has changed
with ZFSv28, and since freebsd-snapshot relies on "zfs list" to retrieve
the "ZFS file
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:14:54AM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> Updating sparc64 from r202445 to r219379:
>
>
> cc -O2 -pipe -I/usr/src/sbin/hastctl/../hastd -DINET -DINET6 -DYY_NO_UNPUT
> -DYY_NO_INPUT -DHAVE_CRYPTO -std=gnu99 -fstack-protector -Wsystem-headers
> -Werror -Wall -Wno-form
On 10/03/11 03:44 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> (You know, I'm very tempted to just create a FreeBSD-wireless mailing list..
> :-)
>
>
That would be nice. (+1) :-)
> My AR9280/AR9285 collection just arrived in the post. A quick 2 minute test
> with the AR9285 showed that at least the one I have ha
On Wed Mar 9 11, George Liaskos wrote:
> > I have prepared a patch that finishes the "core2" support part and
> > backports from gcc-4.3
> > the SSSE3 instruction set (-mssse3, -mno-ssse3).
> > It is enabled for -march=core2 by default.
> >
> > Testing and comments are welcome.
> >
> > Patch:
> >
(You know, I'm very tempted to just create a FreeBSD-wireless mailing list..
:-)
My AR9280/AR9285 collection just arrived in the post. A quick 2 minute test
with the AR9285 showed that at least the one I have has issues TX'ing at
higher 11g rates. I won't even bother testing 11n MCS rates until I
On Thu Mar 10 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2011-03-09 22:18, David Schultz wrote:
> >The proliferation of -mno-sse -mno-sse2 -mno-sse3 options in the
> >makefiles is probably not needed: I'm pretty sure -mno-sse implies
> >the other two, unless -msse3 is specified explicitly.
>
> Indeed, contrib
20 matches
Mail list logo
