On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 04:46:54PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Prebuilt for Ubuntu 7.04:
> http://landley.net/code/firmware/downloads/cross-compiler/host-i686/cross-compiler-sparc.tar.bz2
>
> Source code:
> Or http://landley.net/code/firmware/downloads/firmware-0.2.2.tar.bz2
Thanks - I already go
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 10:22:40 am Jeff Dike wrote:
> I poked around a bit for a sparc cross-toolchain, didn't find one, so
> I couldn't see what exactly the problem was.
Prebuilt for Ubuntu 7.04:
http://landley.net/code/firmware/downloads/cross-compiler/host-i686/cross-compiler-sparc.tar.bz
Hi Jeff.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:22:40AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:54:46PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Guess what? I still need this patch to build the final 2.6.23, months
> > later.
> >
> > I know it may not be the right fix, but the build breaks for me without
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:54:46PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Guess what? I still need this patch to build the final 2.6.23, months later.
>
> I know it may not be the right fix, but the build breaks for me without this
> patch. The .config that breaks is attached. ARCH=um.
Can I get a Signed
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 05:44:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > [...] -pg should in theory work with -mregparms.
> >
> > last i checked it didnt work - i'll re-check that.
>
> earlier gcc versions had problems with -mregparm and with -pg. I just
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] -pg should in theory work with -mregparms.
>
> last i checked it didnt work - i'll re-check that.
earlier gcc versions had problems with -mregparm and with -pg. I just
did a quick test with latest gcc and at a quick glance it seems to work
be
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> > > >
> > > > if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> > >
> > >
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:47:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> >
> > >>> if then t
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
>
> >>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> >>>
> >> Well you're asking for
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> > >
> > > if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> >
> > Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
>>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
>>>
>> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code. [...]
>>
>
> nice word-be
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Should we re-add them for the function pointers in
asm-x86/paravirt.h?
>>> yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and
>>> still is).
>>>
>> Do you have a patch to do t
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> >
> > if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
>
> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code. [...]
nice word-bending there. I'm asking for pre-existing annotations to
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > so this patch adds back fastcall annotations. This serves as
>> > documentation for assembly calling-convention dependencies as well.
>>
>> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
>
> if then th
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:45:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in
> > >> asm-x86/paravirt.h?
> > >
> > > yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and
> > > still is).
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so this patch adds back fastcall annotations. This serves as
> > documentation for assembly calling-convention dependencies as well.
>
> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
I
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> the 'fastcall removal' changes to paravirt.c were over-eager: they
> removed fastcall annotations from functions that are (or might be)
> implemented in assembly. So if someone changes the compiler model,
> such as -pg which disables regparm, the kernel b
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in
> >> asm-x86/paravirt.h?
> >
> > yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and
> > still is).
>
> Do you have a patch to do this already?
yes, attached. Ack?
In
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > we should kill it there too.
> >
> > the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
> > functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
> > easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_T
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> we should kill it there too.
>
> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels.
Should we re-add them for the function pointe
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:43:46PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Fallout continues; I've got a preliminary patch for it. Basically, we
> need to stop doing -U__i386__ et.al.
Thanks, Al. You need the patch below in order to get a working UML -
feel free to fold it into this.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:43:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, I would simply kill the damn fastcall thing - right now the only
> user is uml/i386; everything else either has it #defined to nothing or
> (as i386 does) passes -mregparm=3 while having fastcall expand to
> __attribute__((regparm(3))
* Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in kernel/sched.c
>
> FWIW, I would simply kill the damn fastcall thing - right now the only
> user is uml/i386; everything else either has it #defined to nothing or
> (as i386 does) passes -mregparm=3 while having fastcall expand to
> __attribute__((reg
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:25:04PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >Now apply the patch upthread, it should've fixed that one (and yes, you
> >are down to the stuff this patch is supposed to fix - and does so here).
>
> Yes, this one is fixed. Thanks for your patch.
>
> But another one comes out. ;(
J
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:30:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> >> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time
* WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time,
> >> but still exist. Error messages are:
> >>
> >> CC ar
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time,
>> but still exist. Error messages are:
>>
>> CC arch/um/kernel/syscall.o
>> CC arch/um/kernel/sy
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time,
> but still exist. Error messages are:
>
> CC arch/um/kernel/syscall.o
> CC arch/um/kernel/sysrq.o
> arch/um/kernel/sysrq.c: In function ???show_stack???:
>
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> >On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
> >> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VDE. ;(
> >>
> >> Errors threw out by gcc (too many) are put here:
> >>http://wangco
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:43AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:52:02PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> >> >On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
> >> >> I build UML f
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:43AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:52:02PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
>> >On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
>> >> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VD
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:12:46PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VDE. ;(
>
> Errors threw out by gcc (too many) are put here:
> http://wangcong.org/down/errors.txt
>
> And my .config is located here:
> http://wangcong.org/down/do
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:52:02PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> >On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
> >> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VDE. ;(
> >>
> >> Errors threw out by gcc (too many) are put here:
>
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
>On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
>> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VDE. ;(
>>
>> Errors threw out by gcc (too many) are put here:
>> http://wangcong.org/down/errors.txt
>
>It's hard to tell witho
On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VDE. ;(
>
> Errors threw out by gcc (too many) are put here:
> http://wangcong.org/down/errors.txt
It's hard to tell without LOCALE=C, but those are the sorts of results
I'd expect
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:22:14AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:37:46PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> >Fallout continues; I've got a preliminary patch for it. Basically, we
>> >need to stop doing -U__i386__ et.al.
>> >
>>
>> Hi, Al.
>>
>> I applied your patch and recompiled the
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:37:46PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >Fallout continues; I've got a preliminary patch for it. Basically, we
> >need to stop doing -U__i386__ et.al.
> >
>
> Hi, Al.
>
> I applied your patch and recompiled the kernel. But it failed again.
> ;(
Details would be welcome...
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:43:46PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:20:32PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:08:48AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
>> >On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:48:54PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> >> UML still doesn't build on 2.6.23-git16.
>> >>
>>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:20:32PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:08:48AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:48:54PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >> UML still doesn't build on 2.6.23-git16.
> >>
> >> Gcc threw out many errors, I put them in the web:
> >>ht
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:08:48AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:48:54PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> UML still doesn't build on 2.6.23-git16.
>>
>> Gcc threw out many errors, I put them in the web:
>> http://wangcong.org/down/errors.txt
>
>Looks like either you need to ru
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:48:54PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> UML still doesn't build on 2.6.23-git16.
>
> Gcc threw out many errors, I put them in the web:
> http://wangcong.org/down/errors.txt
Looks like either you need to run mrproper and try again, or maybe
fallout from the x86 merge, wi
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 12:41:29PM +0100, Nix wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2007, Paolo Giarrusso told this:
>> Guess most people are not using SMP right now, and that the error disappears
>> without that setting
>
>It doesn't. It fails with non-SMP as well.
>
UML still doesn't build on 2.6.23-git16.
Gcc th
On 20 Oct 2007, Paolo Giarrusso told this:
> Guess most people are not using SMP right now, and that the error disappears
> without that setting
It doesn't. It fails with non-SMP as well.
Rob, your patch works for me. (Not that the reboot into 2.6.23.1 was
problem-free: iproute2-071016 fails to
On venerdì 12 ottobre 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
> [Second try, without clicking "compress" on the file attachment because
> then sourceforge's spam filter bounces it.]
>
> ---
>
> The User Mode Linux build still breaks for me:
> > In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:18,
> >
46 matches
Mail list logo
