similar to: Trying to compile DAHDI on Pidora 2014 (RPi)

Taking the suggestions of the group under consideration, I’ve generated a new diff. The thing to note is that armv6l is now treated identically to armv6hl. I’ve also added a unit test. This seems to me to be the least invasive method, and holds to existing conventions as closely as possible. Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

Oops, I neglected to reply-all…. The current stable branch at github still has it: https://github.com/apple/swift-llvm/blob/stable/include/llvm/Support/ARMTargetParser.def#L106 <https://github.com/apple/swift-llvm/blob/stable/include/llvm/Support/ARMTargetParser.def#L106> Should I get the head of the non-swift repository and generate a new diff? Also, I suspect that it’s not a good idea

> You assume triples make sense. That's the first mistake everyone does > when thinking about triples. :) I know they don't make sense in many corner cases, but I think discarding logic where it *does* exist is a mistake. > AFAIK, "ARMv7B" is only used by HighBank, which is no more. But that, > too, was "ARMv7A big endian". I believe it's what any

On attempting to make Zaptel 1.2.16 on FC5, I get the following messages: /usr/src/zaptel-1.2.16/xpp/xbus-core.c: In function 'debugfs_open': /usr/src/zaptel-1.2.16/xpp/xbus-core.c:171: error: 'struct inode' has no member named 'u' make[3]: *** [/usr/src/zaptel-1.2.16/xpp/xbus-core.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/usr/src/zaptel-1.2.16/xpp] Error 2 make[1]: ***

Hi all. I’ve been working with Swift on ARMv6 and v7. While working with ARMv6 on linux, I noticed that my arm architecture canonicalization code didn’t produce the expected result. The code that I had been using (within Swift’s Driver.cpp the following: static llvm::Triple computeTargetTriple(StringRef DefaultTargetTriple) { llvm::Triple triple = llvm::Triple(DefaultTargetTriple); //

I get the following error when trying to compile zaptel on CentOS 5 kernel 2.6.18-8.1.3.el5 CC [M] /root/asterisk-src/zaptel-1.2.17.1/xpp/xbus-core.o /root/asterisk-src/zaptel-1.2.17.1/xpp/xbus-core.c: In function ? /root/asterisk-src/zaptel-1.2.17.1/xpp/xbus-core.c:171: error: ? has no member named ? make[3]: *** [/root/asterisk-src/zaptel-1.2.17.1/xpp/xbus-core.o] Error 1 make[2]: ***

Thanks for the clarifications, Bob! I’ve spent some time with the head of the llvm.org repo, and I now understand a lot better what Renato and Tim were talking about re. the architecture aliases. The patch to add v6l, therefore, seems simple enough. I haven’t been able to test it in my usual flow, because that involves the whole swift stack. I’m considering creating a program that links to

I'm trying to compile latest zaptel-1.2.13 and I'm getting following errors: /usr/src/Asterisk-1.2.14/zaptel-1.2.13/xpp/xbus-core.c: In function ?debugfs_open?: /usr/src/Asterisk-1.2.14/zaptel-1.2.13/xpp/xbus-core.c:171: error: ?struct inode? has no member named ?i_private? make[5]: *** [/usr/src/Asterisk-1.2.14/zaptel-1.2.13/xpp/xbus-core.o] Error 1 make[4]: ***

Dear list, I've set up an RPM repository with several asterisk-related RPMs that I think contain some improvements upon what are already out there. The first goal is to be able to build an Asterisk + FreePBX system on CentOS 5 with the EPEL repo enabled; in our environment, where all our systems are under configuration management, either an appliance-type solution or a manual

Hi, I''m having problems with this configuration: iptables 1.3.7 (vanilla or repackaged for fc5) kernel 2.6.19 (vanilla) ROUTE 1.11 (last pom-ng) layer7-filter 2.6 (last in sf.net) connlimit (last pom-ng) When I try to use -j ROUTE in any chain in mangle table I have this error: [root@myhost ~]# iptables -v -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport msnp -j ROUTE --gw

Eliminate kernel version checks from i386/kernel/pci-dma.c as a trivial first pass cleanup towards merging. Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> --- linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/i386/kernel/pci-dma.c | 29 ----------------- 1 files changed, 29 deletions(-) ===== arch/xen/i386/kernel/pci-dma.c 1.20 vs edited ===== ---

kill dead ocfs_empty stuff, cleanup d_revalidate handling. Index: dcache.c =================================================================== --- dcache.c (revision 1091) +++ dcache.c (working copy) @@ -44,24 +44,11 @@ #define OCFS_DEBUG_CONTEXT OCFS_DEBUG_CONTEXT_DCACHE -static int ocfs_empty_func(struct dentry *dentry, void *ignore); - -/* - * ocfs_dentry_revalidate() - * - */ -#if

All, I have been trying to get CAPI4Linux working on my machine and being frank am failing miserably! I am looking for any help available, I am real newbie (so please be gentle) and choose to run Mandrake 9.2 as it appears quite friendly (or so I thought!). I have been following the guidance found at http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-Asterisk+How+to+connect+with+CAPI for the AVM card (actually I

The difference between kdev_t and dev_t in 2.4 is rather theoretical, no need to clutter up the source for it. Index: src/inode.c =================================================================== --- src/inode.c (revision 969) +++ src/inode.c (working copy) @@ -1877,11 +1872,8 @@ case OCFS_ATTRIB_FIFO: case OCFS_ATTRIB_SOCKET: { -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,0)

It's both in 2.6 and recent 2.6 (for RH ASS2.1 you'll probably need to copy the latest 2.4 defintion, but I don't care for obsolete junk). Index: src/super.c =================================================================== --- src/super.c (revision 1014) +++ src/super.c (working copy) @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ /* get first two blocks */ for (i=0; i<2; i++) { - bhs[i] = getblk

always use the 2.6 variants and fix up for 2.4 under the hood Index: src/journal.c =================================================================== --- src/journal.c (revision 1156) +++ src/journal.c (working copy) @@ -105,9 +105,17 @@ return status; } -#else -#define ocfs_journal_start journal_start -#define ocfs_journal_stop journal_stop + +#define journal_start(journal, nblocks) \ +

Is there a way I could build this package for ARM (Raspberry Pi)? I am using Pidora (Fedora mix for rpi), but can't find the source for this package in any of their repos (http://pidora.ca/pidora/releases/18/packages/source/SRPMS/s/) and tried to build this based on the spec file provided with the sources, but there is an ExclusiveArch statement in that file (ExclusiveArch: i386 i486

(vs format-changes branch) --- src/inc/ocfs_compat.h (revision 994) +++ src/inc/ocfs_compat.h (working copy) @@ -52,6 +70,8 @@ #define unlock_page(p) UnlockPage(p) #define Page_Uptodate(p) PageUptodate(p) +#define io_schedule schedule + #else /* LINUX_VERSION_CODE < 2.6 */ #define OCFS_GENERIC_SB_MEMBER(sb) ((sb)->s_fs_info) --- src/hash.c (revision 994) +++

I had a compile problem with the CVS I downloaded on 21 June. I have a Debian box with 2.4.18 kernel (version needed for support of Conexant ADSL). There is a difficulty with Zaptel build regarding HDLC detection. It tries to build it in and then results in unresolved kernel symbols and fails to load. I have had to comment out the entire HDLC defines in zconfig.h to get a driver to install at

Hi all, Thank you so much for this discussion. It has been very helpful and educational. I think that I understand the perspectives of both Tim and Renato. Let me briefly summarize them to ensure that I correctly understand: Renato’s perspective is that the triple means whatever the author says it does, and that may or not be meaningful. :) In the case of armv7l (for example) it has a clear