Hi Bart,
This messages are usually from user space processes segfaulting
(running testsuites with bugs, etc...)
Sincerely,
Laurent
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 10:50 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A very large number of segfaults is present in the kernel log of system
> gcc10. Can someon
I've seen this topic addressed in the archives, and don't want to restart
any of the arguments about how useful/relevant CFarm has become.
>From my point of view "beggars can't be choosers" and so this email is just
my observations and a few questions and NOT any sort of complaint.
As others have
> 1) Is there any effort (current or planned for the near-future) to revive any
> of the IA64, ARM, MIPS or SPARC systems?
MIPS boards in the form of some edge router pros are currently being shipped to
the CFarm in France courtesy of Imagination Technologies.
Ø 2) Is there any desire from us
On 2015-04-28 15:31:50 -0700, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> Since most of us probably use Linux or OSX on x86-64 every day, this is not
> "diverse" for some of us (though I know our definitions of "diverse" will
> differ).
Indeed I was using CFarm mainly for non x86-64/Linux machines.
> So, I want to as
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-04-28 15:31:50 -0700, Paul Hargrove wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> > 1) Is there any effort (current or planned for the near-future) to revive
> > any of the IA64, ARM, MIPS or SPARC systems?
> >
> > 2) Is there any desire from users to
On 29 avr. 2015, at 00:31, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> I've seen this topic addressed in the archives, and don't want to restart any
> of the arguments about how useful/relevant CFarm has become.
> From my point of view "beggars can't be choosers" and so this email is just
> my observations and a f
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Thibaut Varène wrote:
>
> On 29 avr. 2015, at 00:31, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
>> I've seen this topic addressed in the archives, and don't want to restart
>> any of the arguments about how useful/relevant CFarm has become.
>> From my point of view "beggars can't be
Hi,
On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Thibaut Varène wrote:
> This brings the question of "what is cfarm used for". QEMU can only "emulate"
> so much, and in some specific cases, nothing can replace actual hardware
> testing. The behavior of some platforms, and more precisely some flavors of
> said
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Fotis Georgatos wrote
(in part):
> For the record, both hardware and virtual/simulated resources are useful,
> for different purposes each.
I agree entirely and that is exactly the spirit in which I was operating
when introduced the question.
I never intended to
My message below was intended for the entire list, not just for Matthew.
-Paul
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul Hargrove
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Gcc-cfarm-users] Future of non-x86/Linux platforms?
To: Matthew Fortune
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:47 PM, M
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
[...snip...]
> FWIW: There is a "neat trick" one can use involving distcc.
>
[...snip...]
> While I've not tried building gcc this way (but might try now with
> --disable-bootstrap) I've found this far faster than compiling inside the
> emula
11 matches
Mail list logo
