On Sep 1 11:28, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2020-08-31 13:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Aug 31 13:24, Brian Inglis wrote: > >>>> The upstream patch changed only amd64/x86_64 code sequences for multiple > >>>> modules > >>>> including modfl, and left i386/x86 untouched for those modules. > >> > >> Just pointing out that they only modify their amd64/x86_64 code which > >> doesn't > >> push/pop rax/eax: > > > > Where are you looking at? As you could see from my output, I was > > looking at the master branch of the upstream repo. > > Sorry I didn't see your point there as I wasn't aware there were SF repos. > > > This lengthy discussion for a minor asm snippet doesn't make any sense. > > If you think this is wrong, send patches to cygwin-patches and explain > > where you got it from, preferrably as a git patch from the upstream > > repo. > > Sorry for wasting your time. > I was looking at the bug/patch content and didn't realize someone later added > a > bogus clobber on their x86 code path.
No, really, patches are super great and *I* know *you* know how it works. Given this code is at least questionable, what about sending a patch to upstream and a matching patch to cygwin-patches? The upstream mailing list is at mingw-w64-public AT lists DOT sourceforge DOT net. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
