On Dez 05 2016, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> FAIL: nptl/tst-cancel26
> FAIL: nptl/tst-cancel27
> FAIL: rt/tst-mqueue1
> FAIL: rt/tst-mqueue2
> FAIL: rt/tst-mqueue4
> FAIL: rt/tst-mqueue7
I don't see these failures. Maybe you need to rebuild libgcc?
https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log/d
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:24:11PM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:
>
>
> On 2016/12/5 18:07, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >On Dez 05 2016, "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" wrote:
> >
> >>Is there some progresses on it? We could collabrate to fix those issues.
> >
> >All the elf/nptl/rt fails should be fixed by
On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 11:07 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Dez 05 2016, "Zhangjian (Bamvor)"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Is there some progresses on it? We could collabrate to fix those
> > issues.
> All the elf/nptl/rt fails should be fixed by the recent binutils
> fixes.
>
> Andreas.
I am using bi
On 2016/12/5 18:07, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Dez 05 2016, "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" wrote:
Is there some progresses on it? We could collabrate to fix those issues.
All the elf/nptl/rt fails should be fixed by the recent binutils fixes.
Cool. How about the conform and other failures?
Regards
Hi, Steve
On 2016/11/18 5:45, Steve Ellcey wrote:
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 15:22 +0400, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Yury Norov
wrote:
Below is the results of glibc testsuite run for aarch64/lp64
I have been running the glibc testsuite as well. I have only run it on
an
On Dez 05 2016, "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" wrote:
> Is there some progresses on it? We could collabrate to fix those issues.
All the elf/nptl/rt fails should be fixed by the recent binutils fixes.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 15:22 +0400, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Yury Norov
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Below is the results of glibc testsuite run for aarch64/lp64
I have been running the glibc testsuite as well. I have only run it on
an ILP32 enabled kernel. Usin
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:22:26PM +0400, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Regarding ILP32 runtime, my opinion is that it is acceptable for ILP32
> to have extra failures compared to LP64, since these are not
> regressions, but, rather, failures of a new configuration.
I disagree with this. We definitely n
> On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 01:53:59PM +0530, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> [add libc-alpha mail list]
>>
>> For libc-alpha: this is the part of LKML submission with latest
>> patches for aarch64/ilp32.
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-ke
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 01:53:59PM +0530, Yury Norov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [add libc-alpha mail list]
>
> For libc-alpha: this is the part of LKML submission with latest
> patches for aarch64/ilp32.
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg537846.html
>
> Glibc that I use has also included c
Hi all,
[add libc-alpha mail list]
For libc-alpha: this is the part of LKML submission with latest
patches for aarch64/ilp32.
https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg537846.html
Glibc that I use has also included consolidation patches from Adhemerval
Zanella and me that are still not in the
11 matches
Mail list logo
