[cfe-users] [PATCH v5] cacheflush.2: Document __builtin___clear_cache() as a more portable alternative

Reported-by: Heinrich Schuchardt Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar --- man2/cacheflush.2 | 24 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) diff --git a/man2/cacheflush.2 b/man2/cacheflush.2 index aba625721..7a2eed506 100644 --- a/man2/cacheflush.2 +++ b/man2/cacheflush.2 @@ -86,6 +

Re: [cfe-users] [PATCH v5] cacheflush.2: Document __builtin___clear_cache() as a more portable alternative

On 12/14/20 12:43 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: Reported-by: Heinrich Schuchardt Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar Reviewed-by: Heinrich Schuchardt --- man2/cacheflush.2 | 24 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) diff --git a/man2/cacheflush.2 b/man2/cacheflush.2 ind

Re: [cfe-users] cacheflush.2

On 12/11/20 11:14 AM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via Gcc wrote: It looks like GCC recently moved from 'char *' to 'void *'. This SO question[1] (4 years ago) quotes the GCC docs and they had 'char *'. __builtin___clear_cache in GCC has always been declared to take void*. The signature in th

Re: [cfe-users] cacheflush.2

Hello Martin, Thanks for the correction! Then the prototypes that changes from 'char *' to 'void *' in r269082 were not exposed to the user, right? I guess then those are just internal implementation where GCC did use 'char *'. Where is the actual prototype exposed to the user declared? Thanks,

[cfe-users] [PATCH v6] cacheflush.2: Document __builtin___clear_cache() as a more portable alternative

Reported-by: Heinrich Schuchardt Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar Cc: Martin Sebor Cc: Dave Martin --- v6: - GCC has always exposed 'void *', as Martin Sebor noted. It's Clang (and maybe others) that (following GCC's docs) exposed 'char *'. man2/cacheflush.2 | 24

[cfe-users] Ping: cacheflush.2

Hi Martin, I sent you an email, but I received a "delivery failure". If you're reading this from a list, could you answer, please? Thanks, Alex On 12/14/20 11:34 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: > Hello Martin, > > Thanks for the correction! > Then the prototypes that changes from 'cha

Re: [cfe-users] Ping: cacheflush.2

On 12/18/20 3:42 AM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: Hi Martin, I sent you an email, but I received a "delivery failure". If you're reading this from a list, could you answer, please? Thanks, Alex On 12/14/20 11:34 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: Hello Martin, Thanks for the c

Re: [cfe-users] Ping: cacheflush.2

Hi Martin, Thanks! It's good to learn some GCC internal details :) Cheers, Alex On 12/18/20 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 12/18/20 3:42 AM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> I sent you an email, but I received a "delivery failure". >> If you're reading this from a li

[cfe-users] Ping: [PATCH v6] cacheflush.2: Document __builtin___clear_cache() as a more portable alternative

Ping On 12/15/20 2:30 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Reported-by: Heinrich Schuchardt > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar > Cc: Martin Sebor > Cc: Dave Martin > --- > > v6: > - GCC has always exposed 'void *', as Martin Sebor noted. > It's Clang (and maybe others) that (following GCC's docs)

Re: [cfe-users] [PATCH v6] cacheflush.2: Document __builtin___clear_cache() as a more portable alternative

On 12/15/20 2:30 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Reported-by: Heinrich Schuchardt > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar > Cc: Martin Sebor > Cc: Dave Martin > --- > > v6: > - GCC has always exposed 'void *', as Martin Sebor noted. > It's Clang (and maybe others) that (following GCC's docs) > e