Trying to make world today and last night, with fairly up-to-the-minute
source, I keep bombing out with:
`/usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_tools/../../../../contrib/egcs/gcc/config/i386/i386.
md' is up to date.
`genattr.c' is up to date.
`gencodes.c' is up to date.
`genconfig.c' is up to date.
`genemit.
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Please don't disregard to read rpevious messages from this list!
Sorry, I just started running current again the other day, I didn't
re-subscribe until last night.
> As it was pointed earlier make world now fails if -jN option used.
>Try to build withou
I just built a kernel, from sources cvsupped last night. It's over 2
megs in size, compared to 1.3 megs for a kernel built from the same
config file four days ago. Is this due to the change in the debugging
symbol policy? file(1) reports both kernels as 'ELF 32-bit LSB
executable, Intel 80386, v
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
> SunOS 4 doesn't do memory overcommit.
I get the impression from Vahalia's _UNIX Internals_ that this is true
of SunOS 5 as well.
> This could be shaved down a bit if SunOS didn't require
> (swap > total VM) instead of (swap + RAM > total VM).
Again, from
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , John Polstra writes:
> >Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >
> >You're being totally unrealistic. You can't create >2^32 of
> >_anything_ on an i386 without running out of memory.
>
> Well, John, you can, the newer ones will address 2^36 bytes
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> > To sum it all up is there any difference between the branches?
>
> Yes. We hope that people like you will help us by participating in the
> testing of potential releases _before_ they go out as releases, not
> _afterwards_.
>
> Sitting around doing n
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Dennis Glatting wrote:
> In reading your message I felt compelled to ask you a question. Are
> you using gb end-to-end? That probably isn't a good idea because in
> TCP the sequence numbers can wrap within timeout periods and the data
> stream become undetectably (from a TCP p
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Isn't that adequately covered by the PAWS extension from RFC 1323?
>
> Well, maybe it would, but
>
> [1:09am]~src/etc-111# grep tcp_ext defaults/rc.conf
> tcp_extensions="NO" # Disallow RFC1323 extensions (or YES).
>
> It's off by defa
