On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:04:19PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: njoly
> > Date: Sat Jun 2 14:52:28 UTC 2012
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/tests/lib/libexecinfo:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: njoly
> Date: Sat Jun 2 14:52:28 UTC 2012
>
> Modified Files:
> src/tests/lib/libexecinfo: t_backtrace.c
>
> Log Message:
> Adjust test for recent atf_machine (amd64) -> atf_arch (x86_
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> Well, it worked for me ;-)
>
> atf_machine The machine type name detected by ATF. This should
>not be tunable but is provided for symmetry with
>atf_arch.
My
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:58:50PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> I think there is no such thing as "atf_machine".
Well, it worked for me ;-)
atf_machine The machine type name detected by ATF. This should
not be tunable but is provided for symmetry with
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:29:55PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 03:11:58PM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > Use "atf_arch" instead of "atf_machine"; see atf-config(1).
>
> What is the difference?
I think there is no such thing as "atf_machine".
- Jukka
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 03:11:58PM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> Log Message:
> Use "atf_arch" instead of "atf_machine"; see atf-config(1).
What is the difference? atf-config(1) is mumbling about unnamed bugs
and upstream fixes, but does not explain what differs and which should
be prefered.
Mar
