Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:51:06 -0700 (MST) From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: des@des.no Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060203.105106.41729362.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <86irrwre3y.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <86fyn242w0.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203090804.Q59587@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <86irrwre3y.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav) 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 abou= t 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060203.105106.41729362.imp>