On 01/21/18 12:59, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi;
On 01/21/18 11:56, Mark Millard wrote:
[May be an __alloc_size2(n,s) should be added and used?]
On 2018-Jan-20, at 5:05 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Very interesting , thanks for running such tests ...
On 01/20/18 18:59, Mark Millard wrote
Hi;
On 01/21/18 11:56, Mark Millard wrote:
[May be an __alloc_size2(n,s) should be added and used?]
On 2018-Jan-20, at 5:05 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Very interesting , thanks for running such tests ...
On 01/20/18 18:59, Mark Millard wrote:
[Noting a typo in the program source, and
so
Very interesting , thanks for running such tests ...
On 01/20/18 18:59, Mark Millard wrote:
[Noting a typo in the program source, and
so in the output text: the 2nd occurance of: "my_calloc_alt0
should have been: "my_calloc_alt1
. Hand edited corrections below for clarity.]
On 2018-Jan-20, at
On 11/25/17 15:28, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
I have seen problems on arm with zstd though.
For the record:
arm.armv6 buildworld failed, check _.arm.armv6.buildworld for details
===> lib/libzstd (all)
Assertion failed: (LiveCPSR && "CPSR liveness tracking is wro
Thank you for the report ...
On 11/25/17 15:15, Mark Millard wrote:
[Quick top post:]
Reverting to -r326192 and rebuilding avoided the issue.
Prior notes:
On 2017-Nov-25, at 12:02 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
For example,
/usr/obj/amd64_clang/amd64.amd64/usr/src/amd64.amd64/tmp/usr/include
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 20:38, Mark Millard wrote:
>
> [I accidentally sent the original of the "on . . . wrote"
> below to the wrong toolchain list. This just corrects that.]
>
> [I'll also note that lang/gcc6-aux was indirectly attempted
> when I tried to build ports-mgmt/synth on a Pine64+ 2GB
On 08/27/16 12:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:06:54AM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 08/26/16 20:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...>> I think we should move forward, just want to make sure it doesn???t
break some arch completely before moving ahead. While ll
For the record ...
On 08/26/16 20:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 26/08/2016 19:00, Warner Losh wrote:
...
I think we should move forward, just want to make sure it doesn’t
break some arch completely before moving ahead. While lld is a goal,
the goal is also to have a ld.bdf installed for 12
On 26/08/2016 19:00, Warner Losh wrote:
On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 26/08/2016 11:48, Warner Losh wrote:
On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
On 08/26/16 10:06, Warner Losh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On
On 26/08/2016 11:48, Warner Losh wrote:
On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
On 08/26/16 10:06, Warner Losh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 08/26/16 05:56, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:50:31PM -0500, Pedro
Hello;
On 26/08/2016 11:00, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:00:58AM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 08/26/16 05:56, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:50:31PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
GNU RELRO support was committed in r230784 (2012-01-30
On 08/26/16 10:08, Warner Losh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 08/26/16 10:01, Warner Losh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Ed Maste wrote:
On 26 August 2016 at 10:18, Warner Losh wrote:
So what's the summary of why we'd want to do
Hello;
On 08/26/16 10:06, Warner Losh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 08/26/16 05:56, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:50:31PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
GNU RELRO support was committed in r230784 (2012-01-30) but we never
On 08/26/16 05:56, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:50:31PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
GNU RELRO support was committed in r230784 (2012-01-30) but we never
enabled it by default.
There was some discussion about it on
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3001
By now
Hello;
GNU RELRO support was committed in r230784 (2012-01-30) but we never
enabled it by default.
There was some discussion about it on
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3001
By now, all Linux distributions, NetBSD and DragonFly support it and
it is the default for most systems in binutils 2.27.
It looks to me like -current is broken with gcc-4.2.1 ?
Not sure anybody cares, but we are testing the FORTIFY_SOURCE support
with gcc-4.2.1 as we plan to support all the base compilers.
Pedro.
On 08/13/15 11:07, Oliver Pinter wrote:
Hi Pedro and current!
I have the problem with the $SUBJECT.
Dear developers;
As part of this year's Google Summer of Code [1] Oliver Pinter and I have
been working on implementing the FORTIFY_SOURCE libc extension. The
idea, initially implemented in GNU libc is to use the gcc's
__builtin_object_size
to replace many common string functions with bounds ch
pfg added a comment.
Nice, thanks! FWIW, I meant to approve it you guys beat me ;).
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1543
To: emaste, imp, pfg
Cc: freebsd-toolchain
___
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/m
Hi Andriy;
Il giorno 10/set/2014, alle ore 12:23, Andriy Gapon ha
scritto:
>
> In my opinion WITH_CTF should imply -g in CFLAGS otherwise, as far as I can
> see,
> there is nothing to generate CTF data from. Forcing an end-user to remember
> to
> additionally pass -g is not nice.
>
My und
El 04/01/2014 5:49 p. m., Pedro Giffuni escribió:
On 02.01.2014 16:48, David Chisnall wrote:
On 2 Jan 2014, at 20:22, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
The behaviour is consistent with llvm-gcc though, as explained here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-gcc-4.2/+bug/483679
" looki
On 02.01.2014 16:48, David Chisnall wrote:
On 2 Jan 2014, at 20:22, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
The behaviour is consistent with llvm-gcc though, as explained here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-gcc-4.2/+bug/483679
" looking at the LLVM/Clang documentation
(http://clang.llv
On 02.01.2014 15:22, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Heloo and Happy New Year!
On 24.11.2013 07:54, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Nov 2013, at 22:11, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I have particular interest in -fwritable-strings
and the block support, mostly with the idea of making our gcc
somewhat more
Heloo and Happy New Year!
On 24.11.2013 07:54, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Nov 2013, at 22:11, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I have particular interest in -fwritable-strings
and the block support, mostly with the idea of making our gcc
somewhat more compatible to clang.
I would absolutely love to
On 24.11.2013 10:11, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:54 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Nov 2013, at 22:11, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I have particular interest in -fwritable-strings
and the block support, mostly with the idea of making our gcc
somewhat more compatible to clang.
I
Hi;
I committed the patches from Google's old gcc 4.2.1.
I would like to work slowly on bringing some changes from
Apple's GCC now. I have particular interest in -fwritable-strings
and the block support, mostly with the idea of making our gcc
somewhat more compatible to clang.
Maybe someone is
Hi;
Apparently Google has an enhanced gcc distribution for Android [1] and I
found a series of interesting patches there. Most of the patches are
backports of patches produced by Google employees and submitted to the
FSF. The license hasn't been changed from the GPLv2.
While gcc doesn't have
Hello;
I was looking at some article referred by IT world (and later
Slashdot) for this tool:
http://css.csail.mit.edu/stack/
It tries to find out non-obvious bugs of the type that are caused
by compiler optimizations.
The master version at github has a build issue for FreeBSD but
the "inline"
On 29.05.2013 11:06, Warner Losh wrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 2:47 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 29 May 2013, at 07:57, Andriy Gapon wrote:
In fact, I am of opinion that while such bugs exist gcc should be crowned back
as a default compiler.
Seriously? Your show stopper bug is that, very occa
On 28.05.2013 12:41, Warner Losh wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 27.05.2013 14:38, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 21:12, Rui Paulo wrote:
On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Almost a year ago I tried to bring in the support for AMD&#
On 27.05.2013 14:38, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 21:12, Rui Paulo wrote:
On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Almost a year ago I tried to bring in the support for AMD's barcelona
chipset into our gcc. This actually filled a lot of holes in that were left
when si
On 27.05.2013 14:12, Rui Paulo wrote:
On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
Almost a year ago I tried to bring in the support for AMD's barcelona
chipset into our gcc. This actually filled a lot of holes in that were left
when similar intel support was broug
Hello;
Almost a year ago I tried to bring in the support for AMD's barcelona
chipset into our gcc. This actually filled a lot of holes in that were left
when similar intel support was brought in.
Unfortunately I had to revert rapidly such support as it broke building
some C++ ports even when it
Hello;
El 03/05/2013 5:30 a. m., Dimitry Andric escribió:
...
2.) Alternative linkers
Is there a document available detailing the current feasible linkers
and their status?
e.g., is it possible to build a working system with mclinker, gold,
etc., and what is the
process for accomplishing thi
Hello;
On 02/03/2013 17:33, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2013-02-01 15:46, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 02/01/2013 08:01, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 28/01/2013 17:11 Andriy Gapon said the following:
I wonder why the following is the case for the base gcc.
/usr/include/c++/4.2/bits/c++config.h:
/* Define
On 02/04/2013 17:03, Hongli Lai wrote:
Any progress on fixing this issue?
I think there is a fix (and a fix to the fix) in -current.
Pedro.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 05:26:29PM +, David Chisnall wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:24,
Hello Dimitry;
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Dimitry Andric
> I had a bit more in-depth look at our current libstdc++ configuration.
>
> I took the original gcc 4.2.1 release tarball, modified a few autoconf
> related scripts to cope with "freebsd10.0" being the current version,
> and
Hello;
On 02/01/2013 08:01, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[ping]
on 28/01/2013 17:11 Andriy Gapon said the following:
Guys,
I wonder why the following is the case for the base gcc.
/usr/include/c++/4.2/bits/c++config.h:
/* Define if C99 functions or macros from , , ,
, and can be used or exposed.
On 01/25/2013 10:44, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
Hello list,
On behalf of Pete Chou, I would like to ask for review, testing and hopefully
commit help of this revised patch for crunchgen and crunchide which allows
mclinker (http://code.google.com/p/mclinker/) to link the base system. In
short, th
Hello;
Sorry for top-posting: I am in a mobile device that doesnt know better.
I am aware that openoffice is also broken due to stlport.
The situation is not too different from the fortran removal: for many reasons
it is convenient to use a pre-packaged compiler for many ports. Gcc 4.2.1 is
al
On 01/25/2013 16:51, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2013-01-25 21:54, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
I am aware a fix is being worked on. I think that as long as
the default compiler/C++ library works it is OK to make things
easier for other compilers. I am OK with having that change in
-current but for 9
On 01/25/2013 15:44, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
...
I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of
the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g.,
are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ?
The libstdc++ issue is really REALLY worrying.
I would prefer
On 01/25/2013 14:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
Hi All,
In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Konstantin Belousov
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 04:52:00PM +, Hongli Lai wrote:
>>
>> >Number: 175453
>> >Category: standards
>> >Synopsis: Catching C++ std::bad_cast doesn't work in FreeBSD
> 9.1
>> >Confidential: no
>> >
Hello;
Just my $0.02.
- Original Message -
...
> Can you, please, read what I wrote ? Fixing _ports_ to compile with
> clang is plain wrong. Upstream developers use gcc almost always for
> development and testing. Establishing another constant cost on the
> porting work puts burden on
Hello;
The Elftoolchain project has been developing a BSD ld:
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/elftoolchain/
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/elftoolchain/browser/trunk/ld
I thought that would be the official FreeBSD implementation.
cheers,
Pedro.
_
Hi again;
On 05/17/12 11:44, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-05-17 17:44, Pedro Giffuni wrote:> Hi;
I took a bunch of patches that were merged into the GCC 4.1 branch
(under GPLv2) and prepared a patch for merging them into our base
gcc. These are supposed to be bug fixes only.
You can get
On 05/18/12 02:08, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
On (17/05/2012 10:44), Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi;
I took a bunch of patches that were merged into the GCC 4.1 branch
(under GPLv2) and prepared a patch for merging them into our base
gcc. These are supposed to be bug fixes only.
You can get the patch here
Hi Dimitry;
On 05/17/12 11:44, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-05-17 17:44, Pedro Giffuni wrote:> Hi;
I took a bunch of patches that were merged into the GCC 4.1 branch
(under GPLv2) and prepared a patch for merging them into our base
gcc. These are supposed to be bug fixes only.
You can
Hi;
I took a bunch of patches that were merged into the GCC 4.1 branch
(under GPLv2) and prepared a patch for merging them into our base
gcc. These are supposed to be bug fixes only.
You can get the patch here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pfg/patches/patch-contrib-gcc
And, for those really intere
Hello;
FYI, this commit in DragonFly seems interesting:
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/commits/2012-02/msg00146.html
It appears like linux had them from a while and some years ago they started
using them for C++ in gcc:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01872.html
cheers,
50 matches
Mail list logo
