From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 29 21:53:50 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D651065670; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1638FC0A; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so4145687iwn.13 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:53:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.226.5 with SMTP id iu5mr670308icb.12.1288387414388; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.187.71 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.133.12] In-Reply-To: <20101029193850.GH11447@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> References: <20101029193850.GH11447@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:23:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: Nathaniel W Filardo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cross-build failure on sparc64 for TARGET=amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:53:50 -0000 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:38, Nathaniel W Filardo wrote: > Running >> sudo make TARGET_ARCH=3Damd64 TARGET=3Damd64 DESTDIR=3D/usr/x86_64 -j4 b= uildworld > on >> FreeBSD sparcslave.priv.oc.ietfng.org 8.1-STABLE FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #2 r= 214092=3D9050e7b-dirty: Thu Oct 21 01:25:54 UTC 2010 root@t@sparcslave.priv= .oc.ietfng.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SLAVKERN =A0sparc64 I tried this about a year ago - it didn't work then and I suspect it never has. I'm not sure what the cause is. In any case, sparc's are almost always a lot slower than just building natively on amd64 hardware, so you probably aren't going to get people too excited about fixing it without tracking down the exact problem and/or sending a patch. --=20 Rob Farmer