On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Da Rock
wrote:
> I'm trying to build some newer versions of ffserver. But I keep getting asm
> build errors when I get to libavcodec/vp*.
>
> Error: `(%esi,%eax)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
>
> If I set it to build static it fails at h264.
>
> "Err
On 12/07/11 20:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Da Rock
wrote:
I'm trying to build some newer versions of ffserver. But I keep getting asm
build errors when I get to libavcodec/vp*.
Error: `(%esi,%eax)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
If I set it to build sta
On 12/07/11 21:29, Tom Evans wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Da Rock
wrote:
Cool! Thanks for that.
I got a manual to read by the looks of it anyway, but can anyone give me the
inside gos on the why it does what it does? (Or something like that.. :) )
This email explains it:
http:/
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Da Rock
wrote:
> Cool! Thanks for that.
>
> I got a manual to read by the looks of it anyway, but can anyone give me the
> inside gos on the why it does what it does? (Or something like that.. :) )
>
>
This email explains it:
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/m
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Da Rock
wrote:
> I really hate sounding like an idiot, but if I don't ask I'll never know:
> The assembler in base is not up-to-date with the latest instruction sets for
> the cpu, and is causing an error because its telling the cpu to do something
> it doesn't und
On 2011-12-07 01:40, Da Rock wrote:
I'm trying to build some newer versions of ffserver. But I keep getting
asm build errors when I get to libavcodec/vp*.
Error: `(%esi,%eax)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
If I set it to build static it fails at h264.
"Error: `-1(%edi)' is not a
On 12/07/11 22:17, Tom Evans wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Da Rock
wrote:
I really hate sounding like an idiot, but if I don't ask I'll never know:
The assembler in base is not up-to-date with the latest instruction sets for
the cpu, and is causing an error because its telling the cp
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2011-12-07 01:40, Da Rock wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to build some newer versions of ffserver. But I keep getting
>> asm build errors when I get to libavcodec/vp*.
>>
>> Error: `(%esi,%eax)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
>>
>> I
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 2011-12-07 01:40, Da Rock wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm trying to build some newer versions of ffserver. But I keep getting
>>> asm build errors when I get to libavcodec/vp*.
>>>
>>> Error: `(%esi,%
> > Time is SAME as with generic binaries, but score is just a 1.2 higher,
> which is too small to be relevant.
> > What do you think about this?
> >
>
> I think this is why most people don't bother with setting CPUTYPE ;)
>
> Chris
>
DUH!
Why you didn't told me that right away. instead making
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:17:57 +
Tom Evans wrote:
> The way I understand it is that they use compiler/assembler features
> that did not exist in the version of binutils that is in base.
Which begs the question - why isn't the new version of the tools
(provided by ports) listed in BUILDDEPENDS in
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was lucky to write a bit of code which gcc 4.2 fails to compile
> correctly with -O2. Too keep long story short the code fails for gcc
> from base system and last gcc 4.2 snapshot from ports. It works with gcc
> 4.3, gcc 4.4 on
On 12/08/11 00:45, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2011-12-07 01:40, Da Rock wrote:
I'm trying to build some newer versions of ffserver. But I keep getting
asm build errors when I get to libavcodec/v
On 12/08/11 05:47, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:17:57 +
Tom Evans wrote:
The way I understand it is that they use compiler/assembler features
that did not exist in the version of binutils that is in base.
Which begs the question - why isn't the new version of the tools
(provided
On 12/08/11 08:31, Da Rock wrote:
On 12/08/11 05:47, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:17:57 +
Tom Evans wrote:
The way I understand it is that they use compiler/assembler features
that did not exist in the version of binutils that is in base.
Which begs the question - why isn't the
On 12/08/11 08:33, Da Rock wrote:
On 12/08/11 08:31, Da Rock wrote:
On 12/08/11 05:47, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:17:57 +
Tom Evans wrote:
The way I understand it is that they use compiler/assembler features
that did not exist in the version of binutils that is in base.
Whic
Hi,
I uploaded a new version, 2.0.2.
http://students.cs.niu.edu/~z1565938/distfiles/nvi2-freebsd-2011-12-07.diff.gz
Same as before, you need to remove usr.bin/vi/port.h after you applied
this patch.
In this version, I analyzed all of the PRs, patches/commits of
Debian's nvi package and NetBSD's
17 matches
Mail list logo
