TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:54 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:54 - /usr/bin
Well, the whole kernel is bloated at the moment, sorry.
I've been trying to build the _bare minimum_ required to bootstrap
-HEAD on these embedded boards and I can't get the kernel down below 5
megabytes - ie, one with FFS (with options disabled), MIPS, INET (no
INET6), net80211, ath (which admitt
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:52 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 02:20:52 - /usr/bin/c
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:52:45 +0100
Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've created a patch that cleans up FreeBSD Makefiles that
> unconditionally set the -g flag for GCC. The motivation for this is
> that it should be possible to add or remove this flag globally via
> e.g. CFLAGS (it's part of m
On 23/12/2011 20:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> There is a wiki page http://wiki.freebsd.org/SystemTuning which is
>> currently more or less tuning(7) with some annotations, the idea being
>> to
Hi,
Here are two patches which implement some useful features for crunch building:
* Add LOCAL_TOOLS_DIR in src/Makefile.inc1, which adds entries to the
'build-tools' target. This is needed for cross-building bsdbox (and
any external directory added by LOCAL_DIRS)
* If CRUNCH_SUPPRESS_ALL_LINKS i
On 24 December 2011 04:02, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
> On 24 December 2011 03:39, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote:
>> TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on
>> freebsd-current.sentex.ca
>> TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
>> TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00
On 24 December 2011 03:39, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote:
> TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on
> freebsd-current.sentex.ca
> TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
> TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - cleaning the object tree
> TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:50 -
hi there,
is -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 really necessary for i386 builds any longer?
i built GENERIC (including modules) with and without that flag. the results
are:
1654496 bytes with the flag set
vs.
1654952 bytes with the flag unset
the gcc(1) man page states the following:
"
This extra al
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:50 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:50 - /usr/bin
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:50 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-23 19:00:50 - /usr/bin/c
Hi,
This patch allows for user-defined extra local tools directories, a la
what LOCAL_DIRS does for adding local build directories to the source.
This is needed for cross-compiling as some local tools may need to be
first built.
I've used this successfully to cross-compile my busybox stuff.
Tha
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've created a patch that cleans up FreeBSD Makefiles that unconditionally
> set the -g flag for GCC. The motivation for this is that it should be
> possible to add or remove this flag globally via e.g. CFLAGS (it's part of my
>
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:04:32PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2011-12-23 18:55, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> ...
> >>The only thing my patch makes sure of, is that amd64 does the same thing
> >>as all other arches, e.g.: compile
On Fri Dec 23 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2011-12-23 18:55, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> ...
> >>The only thing my patch makes sure of, is that amd64 does the same thing
> >>as all other arches, e.g.: compile with a low optimization
On 2011-12-23 18:55, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
The only thing my patch makes sure of, is that amd64 does the same thing
as all other arches, e.g.: compile with a low optimization settings for
debug (-O, which is equivalent to -O1)
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more li
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more li
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2011-12-23 17:00, Alexander Best wrote:
> ...
> >>>Back in the 7.x days, I ran into some code that wasn't easily to debug
> >>>because the compiler optimized things out with -O2 by inlining and
> >>otherwise shifting around code,
On 12/23/11 16:24, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
On 2011-12-23 17:00, Alexander Best wrote:
...
Back in the 7.x days, I ran into some code that wasn't easily to debug because
the compiler optimized things out with -O2 by inlining and
otherwise shifting around code, so setting breakpoints in gdb became difficult.
So from that point on I've go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/23/2011 8:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> The sloppiest fix might be to do this:
>
> Index: sched_ule.c
> ===
>
>
- --- sched_ule.c (revision 228777)
> +++ sched_ule.c (w
On Fri Dec 23 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:51:47 pm Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu Dec 22 11, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu Dec 22 11, Dimi
On 12/23/11 15:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
> schrieb Daniel Kalchev :
>
>> The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
>> the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
>> tested at that time.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > while the discussion con
On 23.12.11 16:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
I thought that the "D" in FreeBSD stands for "distribution". Yes, it's
ok that it compiles with LLVM. Does it also run faster in benchmarks?
It does. From a language perspective. It is a "distribution", because at
the times BSD was developed, it wa
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other
place. Now... in case someon
I have slightly reordered your email in my reply, in order to put the
most important item last.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:01:33PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> I'm still with the system, although I desperately need scientific grade
> compilers or GPGPU support.
Your use-case, while valid, is clear
On Friday, December 23, 2011 8:21:41 am Larry Rosenman wrote:
> I've been getting these in a VirtualBox VM. I'm not sure what to do.
>
> I CAN give VNC access to this VM in this state.
>
> panic: sched_priority: invalid priority 331: nice 0, ticks 56612596
> ftick 1213618 itick 1214628 tick pri
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:51:47 pm Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
>
> > On Thu Dec 22 11, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu Dec 22 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
schrieb Daniel Kalchev :
> The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
> the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
> tested at that time.
Hi Daniel,
obviously performance is not a quality aspect, only stabil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been getting these in a VirtualBox VM. I'm not sure what to do.
I CAN give VNC access to this VM in this state.
panic: sched_priority: invalid priority 331: nice 0, ticks 56612596
ftick 1213618 itick 1214628 tick pri 159
cpuid = 0
KDB: enter: p
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
? Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:38:21 -0600
Larry Rosenman ?:
BORG-DTRACE
Show, please, the kernel config BORG-DTRACE
include GENERIC
ident BORG-DTRACE
options KDTRACE_HOOKS# all architectures - enable general DTrace hooks
options DDB_CTF
В Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:38:21 -0600
Larry Rosenman пишет:
> BORG-DTRACE
Show, please, the kernel config BORG-DTRACE
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/23/2011 7:31 AM, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> В Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:21:41 -0600 Larry Rosenman
> пишет:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I've been getting these in a VirtualBox VM. I'm not sure what to
>> do.
>>
>> I CAN gi
В Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:21:41 -0600
Larry Rosenman пишет:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've been getting these in a VirtualBox VM. I'm not sure what to do.
>
> I CAN give VNC access to this VM in this state.
>
> panic: sched_priority: invalid priority 331: nice 0, ticks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been getting these in a VirtualBox VM. I'm not sure what to do.
I CAN give VNC access to this VM in this state.
panic: sched_priority: invalid priority 331: nice 0, ticks 56612596
ftick 1213618 itick 1214628 tick pri 159
cpuid = 0
KDB: enter: p
On 12/23/11 10:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
>> experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
>> scientific manner some engineer the fault? I'd expect the developer or
On 12/23/11 07:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
> schrieb "O. Hartmann" :
>
>> Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
>> weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
>> benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real
On Fri Dec 23 11, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> >A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes.
> >I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well
> >without any further optimizations.
>
> The -RELEASE things is
On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup,
bad performance compared to SCHED_4BSD and what happend? We are still
stuck with this problem and more and more peo
On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>> On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some oth
On 12/23/2011 01:14, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On 23. Dec 2011, at 01:40 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/2011 23:20, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> D> So does that mean that if I upgrade to the latest HEAD from a system
>>> D> buil
On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes.
I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well
without any further optimizations.
The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
the corr
On 23. Dec 2011, at 01:40 , Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/21/2011 23:20, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> D> So does that mean that if I upgrade to the latest HEAD from a system
>> D> built before the ifconfig changes that when I reboot my n
On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
scientific manner some engineer the fault? I'd expect the developer or
care-taking engineer taking care in a more user fri
47 matches
Mail list logo
