This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [glibc wiki] Update of "Release/2.16" by AndreasJaeger
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos_odonell at mentor dot com>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos_odonell at mentor dot com>, libc-alpha<libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:08:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: [glibc wiki] Update of "Release/2.16" by AndreasJaeger
- References: <20120612121739.3108.25096@sourceware.org> <4FD736D5.5020305@mentor.com> <2826164.LoDzUc5KdV@byrd>
On 6/12/2012 8:41 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 08:32:21 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 6/12/2012 8:17 AM, GLIBC Wiki wrote:
>>> Dear Wiki user,
>>>
>>> You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "glibc wiki"
>>> for change notification.
>>>
>>> The "Release/2.16" page has been changed by AndreasJaeger:
>>> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.16?action=diff&rev1=9&rev
>>> 2=10>
>>> == Machine Status ==
>>>
>>> * x86, Builds?, No testsuite failures?
>>>
>>> - * x86_64, Builds?, No testsuite failures?
>>> + * x86-64, Builds, No testsuite failures.
>>>
>>> * x32, Builds?, No testsuite failures?
>>> * ARM, Builds?, No testsuite failures?
>>> * Power, Builds?, No testsuite failures?
>>
>> Andreas,
>>
>> Could you do me a favour and describe the system you built x86-64 on
>> without failure?
>>
>> The "No testesuite failures" condition will vary by test system and in
>> retrospect I'd like to capture what test system was used.
>
> I've added now:
> (By AJ: Linux 3.4, GCC 4.7, binutils-2.22)
>
> Anything else to add?
No, that's good enough to capture an idea of what was used.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
Carlos O'Donell
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
carlos_odonell@mentor.com
carlos@codesourcery.com
+1 (613) 963 1026