On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 11:17:48AM +, Russell King wrote:
> So, I have to do _something_ to ensure that we have a reasonable status
> quo in place. Correction: _I_ don't have to do anything at all if I
> don't care about Linux kernels standing a chance of being built correctly
> by less experi
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:49:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Russell King wrote:
> > That's fine until you consider the wide number of machines for ARM,
> > any of which could have this problem.
>
> Fair enough. "ARM" doesn't end up being just one architecture, and that's
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> And one year of apparently "no progress" smells. Bad.
Side note: I don't actually remember how long it's been. Maybe it just
feels a lot longer than it actually is.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Russell King wrote:
>
> That's fine until you consider the wide number of machines for ARM,
> any of which could have this problem.
Fair enough. "ARM" doesn't end up being just one architecture, and that's
a good point.
> Unless of course, you believe that one person shou
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 08:23:49PM +, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:59:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Russell King wrote:
> > > So, what's happening about this?
> >
> > Btw, is there any real reason why the ARM _tools_ can't just be fixed? I
> >
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 08:54:56PM +, Paulo Marques wrote:
The patch (against 2.6.11-rc5) is attached, should you decide to use it.
How does the patch help rmk with respect to the tools issue?
From the thread I gathered that the problem Russell King was having was
caused by
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
That makes no sense. Or, more likely, it means that the toolchain people
are incompetent bastards who don't care about bugs and have no pride at
all in what they do.
Errmm... I really feel pretty small coming in on a Russell King / Linus
Torvalds discussion, but I was
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Russell King wrote:
>
> We can't say "you must use the current CVS binutils to build the
> kernel" because that's not a sane toolchain base to build products
> on.
Sure. But it's probably enough that just a couple of core developers would
have a CVS version to make sure th
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:59:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Russell King wrote:
> > So, what's happening about this?
>
> Btw, is there any real reason why the ARM _tools_ can't just be fixed? I
> don't see why this isn't a tools bug?
It is a tools bug. But the issue i
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Russell King wrote:
>
> So, what's happening about this?
Btw, is there any real reason why the ARM _tools_ can't just be fixed? I
don't see why this isn't a tools bug?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the b
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:10:29PM +, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:40:53AM +, Russell King wrote:
> >>On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:05:01PM +, Russell King wrote:
> >>[...]
> >> LD .tmp_vmlinux1
> >>.tmp_vmlinux1: error: undefined symbol(s
Russell King wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:40:53AM +, Russell King wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:05:01PM +, Russell King wrote:
[...]
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
.tmp_vmlinux1: error: undefined symbol(s) found:
w kallsyms_addresses
w kallsyms_markers
w kallsyms_na
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:40:53AM +, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:05:01PM +, Russell King wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:42:43PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:43:59AM +, Russell King wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we need an archi
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:05:01PM +, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:42:43PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:43:59AM +, Russell King wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe we need an architecture hook or something for post-processing
> > > vmlinux?
> > Makes s
I'm getting your mail!
Check out you code cause if I'm getting your mail, then you're sending
it out to all your customers.
-Alex
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gmail user
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:42:43 +0100, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:43:59AM +, Russell King wro
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:42:43PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:43:59AM +, Russell King wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we need an architecture hook or something for post-processing
> > vmlinux?
> Makes sense.
> For now arm can provide an arm specific cmd_vmlinux__ like um does
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:43:59AM +, Russell King wrote:
>
> Maybe we need an architecture hook or something for post-processing
> vmlinux?
Makes sense.
For now arm can provide an arm specific cmd_vmlinux__ like um does.
The ?= used in Makefile snippet below allows an ARCH to override the
de
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:17:53PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:43:26PM +, Russell King wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > Where did the hacks go which detect the silent failure of the ARM binutils?
>
> They weant away because it caused lots of troubles with sparc and um.
> Ca
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:43:26PM +, Russell King wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Where did the hacks go which detect the silent failure of the ARM binutils?
They weant away because it caused lots of troubles with sparc and um.
Can you use this (untested patch) for arm?
Sam
= Makefile 1.85 v
19 matches
Mail list logo
