headers
mike | 3 Sep 2009 03:22
Picon

Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1

I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4 i
donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces
crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway. Why the hell isnt freescale
on top of this? Fuck damn they should be on top of this and the
68050/70 the natami is trying out, and bloody include talent like Carl
S and Dave H that know what the heck the 68k, electronics, and the
amiga is about....

2009/9/3 mike <localgost <at> gmail.com>:
>> Yep. debian-installer dailies are now *dead* until we get a modern libc
>> working.
> Ugh... and im still having trouble getting installed, it cant read SFS
> or FFS, it loads no modules, and complaied when i tried to modprobe.
> and cant mount partitionts, i wonder if its due to the changes of
> sector number( i believe ) the 3.9 hdtoolbox did, worked under 3.1
> when it detected them but that detected twice the number 3.9 did, and
> 3.9's way is stable, as far as it was... i ended up typing in the rdb
> manually a bunch of times before...
>
> But i've formatted a partition as innocently as i can on amigaos,
> havent tested that yet, but it did bloody read all of them before....
> And i cant make the installer do tcp/ip over serial (slip) without
> attacking it. ( thats basically the next step tho, build the initrd
> from hell and work from there )
>
> 2009/9/1 Stephen R Marenka <stephen <at> marenka.net>:
>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 12:16:27AM +0200, mike wrote:
>>> Btw, i noticed an error
>>> http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/d-i/m68k/images/daily/build_nativehd.log
>>> E: Couldn't find package libnss-dns-udeb
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kolbjørn Barmen | 11 Sep 2009 22:01
Picon

Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, mike wrote:

> I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4 i
> donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces
> crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway. Why the hell isnt freescale
> on top of this? Fuck damn they should be on top of this and the 68050/70
> the natami is trying out, and bloody include talent like Carl S and Dave
> H that know what the heck the 68k, electronics, and the amiga is
> about....

For what it's worth - my m68k systems runs current linux kernel, 2.6.30,
compiled with gcc 4.2.4 just fine, and I have not see any slow-down, apart
from obvious things in bootup, like initiating udev, creating nodes and
similar things that have nothing to do with kernel itself. I also make
sure to compile my kernels with only the modules that makes sense for the
hardware I run it on.

My systems are one A1200 with Blizzard 1230III (030+882 <at> 50MHz) and 32MB
RAM, one A1200 with Blizzard 1260 (060 <at> 50MHz) and 64MB RAM, and one Mac
Quadra 910 (040 <at> 25MHz) with 64MB RAM. Oh and my build box, Aranym with a
040 <at> 100-180MHz depending on host at bootup, and for the time being, 256MB
RAM (allthough, it is down ATM, fixing filesystem disaster after I somehow
managed to launch aranym twice on same disk image :P) 

The A1200 with Blizz1230III has been running more or less non-stop since
1997 with only a break now and then when moving between locations, being
installed into new tower solutions, and infrequent kernel updates, 

I dont use debian though, I use gentoo since it gives me a tool (portage)
to build packages the way I want them, stripped where needed, bloated for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
fthain | 12 Sep 2009 12:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1


On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Kolbj?rn Barmen wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, mike wrote:
> 
> > I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4 i 
> > donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces 
> > crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway. Why the hell isnt freescale 
> > on top of this? Fuck damn they should be on top of this and the 
> > 68050/70 the natami is trying out, and bloody include talent like Carl 
> > S and Dave H that know what the heck the 68k, electronics, and the 
> > amiga is about....
> 
> For what it's worth - my m68k systems runs current linux kernel, 2.6.30, 
> compiled with gcc 4.2.4 just fine, and I have not see any slow-down, 
> apart from obvious things in bootup, like initiating udev, creating 
> nodes and similar things that have nothing to do with kernel itself. I 
> also make sure to compile my kernels with only the modules that makes 
> sense for the hardware I run it on.

What happened to devtmpfs I wonder.

> My systems are one A1200 with Blizzard 1230III (030+882 <at> 50MHz) and 32MB 
> RAM, one A1200 with Blizzard 1260 (060 <at> 50MHz) and 64MB RAM, and one Mac 
> Quadra 910 (040 <at> 25MHz) with 64MB RAM. Oh and my build box, Aranym with a 
> 040 <at> 100-180MHz depending on host at bootup, and for the time being, 
> 256MB RAM (allthough, it is down ATM, fixing filesystem disaster after I 
> somehow managed to launch aranym twice on same disk image :P)

Can't file locking prevent that? Sounds like a bug...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Geert Uytterhoeven | 11 Sep 2009 22:25
Picon

Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1

2009/9/11 Kolbjørn Barmen <linux-m68k <at> kolla.no>:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, mike wrote:
>> I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4 i
>> donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces
>> crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway. Why the hell isnt freescale
>> on top of this? Fuck damn they should be on top of this and the 68050/70
>> the natami is trying out, and bloody include talent like Carl S and Dave
>> H that know what the heck the 68k, electronics, and the amiga is
>> about....
>
> For what it's worth - my m68k systems runs current linux kernel, 2.6.30,
> compiled with gcc 4.2.4 just fine, and I have not see any slow-down, apart
> from obvious things in bootup, like initiating udev, creating nodes and
> similar things that have nothing to do with kernel itself. I also make
> sure to compile my kernels with only the modules that makes sense for the
> hardware I run it on.
>
> My systems are one A1200 with Blizzard 1230III (030+882 <at> 50MHz) and 32MB
> RAM, one A1200 with Blizzard 1260 (060 <at> 50MHz) and 64MB RAM, and one Mac
> Quadra 910 (040 <at> 25MHz) with 64MB RAM. Oh and my build box, Aranym with a
> 040 <at> 100-180MHz depending on host at bootup, and for the time being, 256MB
> RAM (allthough, it is down ATM, fixing filesystem disaster after I somehow
> managed to launch aranym twice on same disk image :P)

[...]

> So, in the end, I'm not so sure that what you complain about is for real.

2.6.x is noticable slower than 2.4.x, due to increasing RAM requirements.
Probably you don't notice it that much as even your least machine has 32 MiB of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Maxim Kuvyrkov | 3 Sep 2009 11:50

Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1

mike wrote:
> I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4 i
> donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces
> crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway.

Would you mind submitting a bug report or two with preprocessed 
testcases showing examples of bad code generation on m68k, especially if 
the code has regressed since some previous version of GCC?

Please CC me on the bug reports.

Thanks,

--
Maxim K.
CodeSourcery
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply |
headers
mike | 3 Sep 2009 18:41
Picon

Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1

 Maxim K.
Its this one, i havent tried building myslef since 2.6.28. but i dont
think that was this slow
http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/d-i/m68k/images/20090813-01:13/kernels/
http://aminet.net/search?query=2.6.28

Im still having trouble installing, the installer just cant seem to
read the fs, even formatted a partition to ffs, which should work, and
i have no /lib/modules/asfs etc. Could it be a problem with the way
3.9 has handled the harddrive?

-Mike
2009/9/3 Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim <at> codesourcery.com>:
> mike wrote:
>>
>> I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4 i
>> donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces
>> crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway.
>
> Would you mind submitting a bug report or two with preprocessed testcases
> showing examples of bad code generation on m68k, especially if the code has
> regressed since some previous version of GCC?
>
> Please CC me on the bug reports.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Maxim K.
> CodeSourcery
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane