Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*PPC\s+port\s+vs\.\s+kl_task\.c\:kl_kernelstack\(\)\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Steve James <saj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:25:06 -0700 (MST)
Yes, my porting effort is well beyond that point. A great many things are working. It is easy when you start with good code :) However, we have a problem. libklib/kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() is not a
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00003.html (9,708 bytes)

2. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: "Matt D. Robinson" <yakker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:35:19 -0800
I'd assume the second answer, but I'll let Tom answer definitively since that's his ball of wax. --Matt
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00004.html (10,294 bytes)

3. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Tom Morano <tjm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:04:16 -0800
Hi Steve, Thanks! :] Generally speaking, we're trying to have as little architecture specific code as possible. At one time, the kl_kernelstack() function was in an arch specific file, but I moved it
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00006.html (11,037 bytes)

4. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Steve James <saj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:52:05 -0700 (MST)
This works for me. No, but I will look into that. I have a whole bunch of observations/issues, etc. that I would like to share with the list before making certain changes that I have been tempted to
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00007.html (10,515 bytes)

5. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:16:41 +1100
FYI, I just went through a similar problem when porting kdb (kernel debugger) v1.7 to IA64. The IA64 is particularly peculiar for several reasons. * It has two stacks, the normal memory stack and a s
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00009.html (9,158 bytes)

6. PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Steve James <saj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:25:06 -0700 (MST)
Yes, my porting effort is well beyond that point. A great many things are working. It is easy when you start with good code :) However, we have a problem. libklib/kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() is not a
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00021.html (9,733 bytes)

7. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: "Matt D. Robinson" <yakker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:35:19 -0800
I'd assume the second answer, but I'll let Tom answer definitively since that's his ball of wax. --Matt
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00022.html (10,323 bytes)

8. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Tom Morano <tjm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:04:16 -0800
Hi Steve, Thanks! :] Generally speaking, we're trying to have as little architecture specific code as possible. At one time, the kl_kernelstack() function was in an arch specific file, but I moved it
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00024.html (11,090 bytes)

9. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Steve James <saj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:52:05 -0700 (MST)
This works for me. No, but I will look into that. I have a whole bunch of observations/issues, etc. that I would like to share with the list before making certain changes that I have been tempted to
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00025.html (10,540 bytes)

10. Re: PPC port vs. kl_task.c:kl_kernelstack() (score: 1)
Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:16:41 +1100
FYI, I just went through a similar problem when porting kdb (kernel debugger) v1.7 to IA64. The IA64 is particularly peculiar for several reasons. * It has two stacks, the normal memory stack and a s
/archives/lkcd/2001-01/msg00027.html (9,186 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu