| To: | Jerry <jerry@wicomtechnologies.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 64 bit kernel for BCM1250 |
| From: | David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 23 May 2005 08:39:21 -0700 |
| Cc: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org> |
| In-reply-to: | <27582192.20050523182609@wicomtechnologies.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20050519135207.7760.qmail@web32510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0505191605350.10681@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <27582192.20050523182609@wicomtechnologies.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) |
Jerry wrote: Hello Maciej, Thursday, May 19, 2005, 6:19:14 PM, you wrote:For 64-bit builds you probably want to use fairly recent versions or you risk hitting serious bugs that used to exist in older versions. UsingDavid's patch (or preferably mine ;-) -- as available here: "http://www.linux-mips.org/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=linux-mips&i=Pine.LNX.4.55.0406281509170.23162%40jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl";which I keep using with GCC 4.0.0) is probably the lesser evil.Without going into details - what difference between your and David's patch ? :) I'm in doubts which one is more suitable for me... FWIW: My current patch is quite similar to Maciej's. David Daney. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re[2]: 64 bit kernel for BCM1250, Jerry |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: yenta_socket, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Previous by Thread: | Re[2]: 64 bit kernel for BCM1250, Jerry |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 64 bit kernel for BCM1250, Michael Belamina |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |