similar to: yum update gone wild? - new base?

I have not touched my Centos systems for over a year; it is time to get current to do some new, interesting things. So of course, 6.3, but which install? I run a local repo that I rsync from a mirror near me. So I believe I can use the Netinstall iso, but which one? How do I determine if I have a i386 or x86_64 processor? If x86_64 how do I determine if I use EFI or not?

This is easy with Fedora, as the various 'common' repos are listed and all I have to do is change the URL.... Anyway, I am doing a netinstall of Centos 6.3 i386 from my local repo. I also have the updates repo. How can I add the updates repo so that I get it up to snuff right away (like I have been doing with Fedora for quite some time)? thanks.

Hi, > Why does it generate GCC only constructs anyway, that does not sound > very much like the multi-platform that LLVM is targeting. since libgcc is available everywhere llvm is, it's as multi-platform as llvm! If we didn't use libgcc then we'd have to introduce an llvm runtime library. Since it would just duplicate the functionality of libgcc, it would introduce an

Duncan Sands wrote: > > since libgcc is available everywhere llvm is, it's as multi-platform > as llvm! If we didn't use libgcc then we'd have to introduce an llvm > runtime library. Since it would just duplicate the functionality of > libgcc, it would introduce an additional maintenance burden without > bringing any real advantage AFAICS. > So if there's

Hi, > Can anyone tell me if invoke/unwind is stable in 2.3? I'm seeing some > really weird stuff -- unwinds are ending up in seemingly arbitrary places... > definitely not inside the caller's unwind block My target is x86. codegen doesn't know how to handle "unwind" on any target. You need to call the libgcc unwinding routines directly (or indirectly by

Hello, > Is setjmp/longjmp what you have in mind? > Is there a timeline for implementing unwind in codegen? I guess I don't > strictly need it, but it would be really handy. I doubt it will be supported/implemented, so maybe it will be better to drop it at all in order not to confuse people. -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

> If you look at the generated x86 machine code, it looks like unwind is > compiled into nothing at all: Yes, unwind is currently not supported by the code generators. This is bad, but not that easy to fix (hopefully one day...). > I can't find any information about cxa_throw at all, not even a type > signature. If I could, could I just call it as if it were unwind, and it >

Duncan Sands wrote: >> I can't find any information about cxa_throw at all, not even a type >> signature. If I could, could I just call it as if it were unwind, and it >> would be caught by invoke? >> > > cxa_throw comes from the gcc C++ runtime. In order to see how to throw > and catch things correctly using it, compile some C++ examples down to >

> So what about those of us who are implementing frontends that have no > connection with gcc or the c++ runtime at all? Are we out of luck as far > as unwind is concerned? For the moment, yes. If unwind gets implemented one day (I have a plan, but no time right now), the implementation is sure to call routines in the gcc runtime. Ciao, Duncan.

I guess Duncan's answer in this thread is the best answer to give: <<Once that [The exception handling stuff needed by llvm-gcc] was done I guess everyone took a breather and kind of forgot about unwind>> So yes, ultimately, unwind will be supported and clang/llvm should provide its own unwinding runtime. Patches welcome :) Cheers, Nicolas OvermindDL1 wrote: > On Mon, Sep

Whoops, did not send to list: On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > libgcc is also available for windows. Really? What license? What restrictions? Any speed impact over the VC runtimes?

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 09:50 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > For the moment, yes. If unwind gets implemented one day (I have a plan, > but no time right now), the implementation is sure to call routines in > the gcc runtime. As a transient solution that makes sense, but it seems desirable to have a generalized unwind scheme that is not tied to libgcc. shap

On Sep 29, 2008, at 2:13 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 09:50 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: >> For the moment, yes. If unwind gets implemented one day (I have a >> plan, >> but no time right now), the implementation is sure to call routines >> in >> the gcc runtime. > > As a transient solution that makes sense, but it seems desirable

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> libgcc is also available for windows. > Really? What license? What restrictions? Any speed impact over the > VC runtimes? Don't mix VC runtime and libgcc. These are totally different libraries for doing

Hi, > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > > libgcc is also available for windows. > Really? What license? What restrictions? search for MinGW and Cygwin. See http://gcc.gnu.org and http://www.gnu.org for licensing information. > Any speed impact over the VC runtimes? I think you are misunderstanding. For certain operations, eg

Hi, One of my samba machines had it's load average shoot through the roof today and had to be hard rebooted and /var/log/messages shows me core dumps for samba around this time. samba is almost the only thing running on this machine. What could possibly cause set uid of -1501 on the 2nd line? Just trying to figure out what happened here, thanks for any help. # smbd -V Version

I want to get the original version of /etc/clamd.d/amavis.conf from the amavisd-new rpm to get the defaults to submit a bug report. I could not figure out how to do this, so I did a reinstall, but it did not replace this file (whatprovides says it comes from this rpm). Is there a way to extract just the one file, and better yet, place it elsewhere than its regular destination? thanks

Hi, I've a huge problem with Samba. It's the PDC of the school LAN. Clients are NTWS 4. Samba has been up and running for 11 days and now, since 2 days, force me to reboot the whole server everyday to work. I explain : when doing an "ps aux" or "smbstatus", i saw A LOT of "smbd -D" started for the same user 10 times in about 2 minutes. When I try to kill

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > /* snip */ Just for another voice in here. 'unwind' and its kin would also be useful for me, especially since this is on platforms without GCC (nor is GCC used in any way in any step anywhere). Why does it generate GCC only constructs anyway, that does not sound very much like the multi-platform that

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > > Can anyone tell me if invoke/unwind is stable in 2.3? I'm seeing some > > really weird stuff -- unwinds are ending up in seemingly arbitrary > places... > > definitely not inside the caller's unwind block My target is x86. > > codegen doesn't know how to