Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:34:28 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Long <scottl@pooker.samsco.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060203113210.G10747@pooker.samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060203.105106.41729362.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <86fyn242w0.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203090804.Q59587@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <86irrwre3y.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203.105106.41729362.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Warner Losh wrote: > From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) > Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:22:25 +0100 > >> Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> writes: >>> The interesting point is: why does it build on my real sparc (2-UII CPUs, >>> 512MByte memory), but not on the tinderbox. Is there something about the >>> crosscompiler that is different? >> >> Different CFLAGS perhaps? > > These different CFLAGS have been a source of unending problems. I've > broken the tinderbox build a couple of times when my LINT build worked > w/o hassle. And I got grumped at it, even though I did everything > right. Maybe we can build the interbox with a set of standard, well > known flags? > > Warner > In this particular case, the problem only shows up when the module builds as part of the buildkernel target. It does not show up when the code is built into thekernel nor when built as a standalone module. I think that this inconsistency is actually more problematic. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060203113210.G10747>