On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:55:23PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> David also has patches for debugging support at:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~davidxu/kse/dbg/
Unless David Xu completes full FSF paper work, we can't use his patches.
Using them tants us forever in getting stock GDB to support ou
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:48:17PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:27:08PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > >
> > >Doug Rabson also has basic TLS support working in perforce.
> >
> > What platforms? My understanding was that new binutils and gcc was
> > needed for sparc64
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>
> > As with Alpha,
> > the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
> > it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
>
> Agreed, but it's th
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
> without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for it
> for his own sake.
Alpha is special, with what seems to me like a GDB bug. Try this:
echo '#include
int main
On Saturday 05 June 2004 04:55 pm, Ali Niknam wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> As promised my findings regarding the changes; just came home after a night
> of trying and praying :)
>
> > Actually, by default, most mutexes in the system are sleep mutexes, so
> > they sleep on contention rather than spinning
On Sun, 2004/06/06 at 14:59:21 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:49:13PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > amd64 is approaching critical mass for tier-1. There are a number of
> > developers that own amd64 hardware now, and a number of users who are
> > asking about it on the mai
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, David Scheidt wrote:
>
> Just about all of that is listed as covered by the APSL. (Except GPL'd
> stuff, it looks like.)
>
>
I noticed this as well, but if you look at the contents (of libc in this
case), there are several */FreeBSD/ directories that contain files that
retain
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 3:46 PM -0600 6/6/04, Scott Long wrote:
At this point, I'm going to advocate that Alpha be dropped from
Tier-1 status for 5.3 and 5-STABLE and no longer be a blocking
item for releases. ... As I said back then, demotion is not a
terminal condition, and I would be thrill
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 09:37:12AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>
> One thing to note is that whatever platforms get dropped from tier-1
> status will have a high probablility of not getting updated with the
> upcoming binutils/gcc/gdb update that is coming.
Logic dictates that the probability should
On Monday 07 June 2004 07:33 am, Thomas Moestl wrote:
> On Sun, 2004/06/06 at 14:59:21 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:49:13PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > > amd64 is approaching critical mass for tier-1. There are a
> > > number of developers that own amd64 hardware now
At 9:37 AM -0600 6/7/04, Scott Long wrote:
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I think you have to officially demote it, with emphasis on the
point that "demotion is not a terminal condition". Then, if some
developer(s) show up and implement all the missing pieces, we
can happily announce it back in tier 1.
On Monday 07 June 2004 01:35 pm, Ali Niknam wrote:
> > There isn't a timeout. Rather, the lock spins so long as the current
> > owning thread is executing on another CPU.
>
> Interesting. Is there a way to 'lock' CPU's so that they always run on
> 'another' CPU ?
Not in userland, no.
> Unfortuna
On 7 Jun 2004 at 16:31, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:32, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > I think it might just be easier to do a straight comparison of the first N
> > characters of the two strings where N = length of the directory name.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
>You can do:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Stefan Eer wrote:
> Any reason, that there is a difference in semantics between:
>
> seteuid(id) vs. setreuid(-1, id)???
>
> The tests performed on the arguments are different (assuming a
> fixed arg of -1 for ruid) in that seteuid does not support the
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:55:31PM +0200, Ali Niknam wrote:
> I tried this; this helps performance a lot, here are the findings:
> - under all conditions turning on HTT helps a *lot* (which is logical i
> think)
> - under non killing load (killing load = load where server would have
> crashed wit
Hi all,
I'm new to this list. and I have some question about
uhci.c and USB issue.
What are the splusb() and splx()?
and how is the reration between uhci_idone() and splusb()?
Above the uhci_idone() in uhci.c "/* called at splusb() */"
is mentioned.
Any helps ar
16 matches
Mail list logo
