On Mar 31 12:18, Peter Foley wrote:
> G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions.
> Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where
> necessary, and remove the check where it is unnecessary.
No, sorry, but now. Converting all affected functions to
On Mar 31 12:33, Peter Foley wrote:
> When cross-compiling a toolchan targeting cygwin, building cygwin1.dll
> requires libgcc.
> However, building libgcc requires the cygwin headers to be
> installed.
> Configuring cygwin requries the mingw-crt libraries, which require the
> cygwin headers to be i
On Mar 30 11:55, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>
>
> On 03/30/2016 11:53 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is the updated and split series of patches to use hardlinks
> > for creating the child process by fork(), in reply to
> > https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2016-01/msg0
On Mar 30 21:12, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On 03/30/2016 09:04 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > On 2016-03-30 13:53, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >> To support in-cygwin package managers, the fork() implementation must
> >> not rely on .exe and .dll files to stay in their original location, a
On Mar 31 14:04, Peter Foley wrote:
> HAVE_BUILTIN_MEMTEST and AC_ALLOCA were removed in 4bd8eb7d1b.
> Cleanup leftover references.
> Use the 3-arg form of AC_DEFINE.
> MALLOC_DEBUG and NEWVFORK haven't been defined since 2008
> (46162537516c5e5fbb). Remove all references to tem.
> Don't use ob
On 2016-04-01 07:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 31 12:18, Peter Foley wrote:
G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions.
Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where
necessary, and remove the check where it is unnecessary.
No, sorry, but
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Corinna Vinschen
wrote:
> Btw., if it's not asked too much I'd be glad if a patch series like this
> comes with a cover letter (e.g. git format-patch --cover-letter).
Sure, will do in future.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen
wrote:
> Can we please fold the --without-mingw-progs and --without-library-checks
> into a single option? Given the task is basically the same, the option
> name should reflect something along the lines of "cross-build",
> "bootstrap", and "stage
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html, section named "Optimizations
> remove null pointer checks for this".
If there's an better way to do this, I'm all ears.
However, it seems to come down to either making these methods static
or
On Apr 1 08:12, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2016-04-01 07:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mar 31 12:18, Peter Foley wrote:
> >>G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions.
> >>Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where
> >>necessary, and remo
On Apr 1 09:34, Peter Foley wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz
> wrote:
> > See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html, section named "Optimizations
> > remove null pointer checks for this".
>
> If there's an better way to do this, I'm all ears.
As I mentioned in my f
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Corinna Vinschen
wrote:
> As I mentioned in my first reply, I'd prefer if the callers check the
> pointer explicitly. Changing the methods to static methods seems ...
> wrong. Ugly, if you don't mind me saying so.
Fair enough, I'll respin this at some point.
On Apr 1 09:31, Peter Foley wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen
> wrote:
> > Can we please fold the --without-mingw-progs and --without-library-checks
> > into a single option? Given the task is basically the same, the option
> > name should reflect something along the line
G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member
functions.
Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to resolve this.
Signed-off-by: Peter Foley
---
Just wanted to make sure that this approach looked good before I fix all the
problematic files.
winsup/cygwin/fhandler_dsp.c
On Apr 1 11:42, Peter Foley wrote:
> G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member
> functions.
> Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to resolve this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Foley
> ---
> Just wanted to make sure that this approach looked good before I fix
> all th
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Corinna Vinschen
wrote:
> Other than that, please go ahead.
Will do.
An assortment of unrelated patches discovered in the process of rebuilding
GCC with 2.5.0-0.10.
Yaakov Selkowitz (4):
Feature test macros overhaul: Cygwin pthread.h
cygwin/math: make isinf functions signed
cygwin: update sysconf for new features
winsup/utils: port getconf to 64-bit
winsu
As a Cygwin-specific header, there is no need to guard functions based on
capability macros. Instead, guard several blocks based on additions or
removals in later versions of POSIX.1, along with a few which are only
XSI or GNU extensions.
Signed-off-by: Yaakov Selkowitz
---
winsup/cygwin/includ
glibc returns -1 for negative infinity:
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/isinfl.3.html
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15367
Signed-off-by: Yaakov Selkowitz
---
winsup/cygwin/math/isinf.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winsup/cygwin
The available specifications obviously differ on 32-bit and 64-bit, as
already handled in .
Signed-off-by: Yaakov Selkowitz
---
winsup/utils/getconf.c | 35 +++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winsup/utils/getconf.c b/winsup/utils/g
POSIX spawn and thread barriers have since been added. Also fix a typo in
_POSIX2_C_DEV (result is the same).
Signed-off-by: Yaakov Selkowitz
---
winsup/cygwin/sysconf.cc | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/sysconf.cc b/winsup/cygwin/sysconf.c
21 matches
Mail list logo
