Re: libatomic IFUNC question (arm & libat_have_strexbhd)

2017-06-05 Thread Florian Weimer
* Steve Ellcey: > I have a question about the use of IFUNCs in libatomic. I was looking at the > arm implementation and in gcc/libatomic/config/linux/arm/host-config.h I see: > > extern bool libat_have_strexbhd HIDDEN; > # define IFUNC_COND_1 libat_have_strexbhd > > I also see that

Re: Problem with "" vs <> headers and fixincludes

2017-06-05 Thread Bruce Korb
T-Bird snafu resend: On 06/05/17 14:52, Bruce Korb wrote: > On 06/01/17 07:24, Douglas B Rupp wrote: >> >> This is a reproducer for a problem we have with fixincludes on >> vxworks6.6. The desired output is >> FOO= 1 >> >> The problem is the rules for handling headers enclosed in quotes can >> ca

Fw: xz instead of bzip2

2017-06-05 Thread Matias Fonzo
Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:17:57 -0300 From: Matias Fonzo To: R0b0t1 Subject: Re: xz instead of bzip2 On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:44:25 -0500 R0b0t1 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Matias Fonzo > wrote: > > Dear GCC developers, > > > > What happens here ! > > >

libatomic IFUNC question (arm & libat_have_strexbhd)

2017-06-05 Thread Steve Ellcey
I have a question about the use of IFUNCs in libatomic. I was looking at the arm implementation and in gcc/libatomic/config/linux/arm/host-config.h I see: extern bool libat_have_strexbhd HIDDEN; # define IFUNC_COND_1 libat_have_strexbhd I also see that gcc/libatomic/config/linu

Re: Problem with "" vs <> headers and fixincludes

2017-06-05 Thread Bruce Korb
On 06/01/17 07:24, Douglas B Rupp wrote: > > This is a reproducer for a problem we have with fixincludes on > vxworks6.6. The desired output is > FOO= 1 > > The problem is the rules for handling headers enclosed in quotes can > cause gcc to #include the original header not the patched header. >

Re: xz instead of bzip2

2017-06-05 Thread Antonio Diaz Diaz
Hello Andreas et all, Andreas Schwab wrote: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2017-01/msg9.html In the above link I read the following affirmation by Jim Meyering: "I found/find that xz is superior to lzip". But he does not back his affirmation with any evidence. Appeal to au

Re: xz instead of bzip2

2017-06-05 Thread Matias Fonzo
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:24:50 +0200 Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jun 05 2017, Matias Fonzo wrote: > > > Dear GCC developers, > > > > What happens here ! > > > > "Weekly snapshots now use xz compression [2017-05-24] > > ...instead of bzip2." > > > > Are you aware that a better implementation /

Re: xz instead of bzip2

2017-06-05 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Jun 05 2017, Matias Fonzo wrote: > Dear GCC developers, > > What happens here ! > > "Weekly snapshots now use xz compression [2017-05-24] > ...instead of bzip2." > > Are you aware that a better implementation / format exists for this > purposes?: > > http://lzip.nongnu.org/ > > Review

xz instead of bzip2

2017-06-05 Thread Matias Fonzo
Dear GCC developers, What happens here ! "Weekly snapshots now use xz compression [2017-05-24] ...instead of bzip2." Are you aware that a better implementation / format exists for this purposes?: http://lzip.nongnu.org/ Review of xz: http://lzip.nongnu.org/xz_inadequate.html Ple

Re: Getting spurious FAILS in testsuite?

2017-06-05 Thread Jim Wilson
On 06/01/2017 05:59 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Hi, when I am running the gcc testsuite in $builddir/gcc then $ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='ubsan.exp' comes up with spurious fails. This was discussed before, and the suspicion was that it was a linux kernel bug. There were multiple kernel fix