Hello everyone,
I need to remind you that we are working on implementation of OMPD, so
you don't make it open for GSoC this year.
our progress so far,
We are working on a GDB extension using python so we can provide OMPD with
callbacks.
Jakub said that we need GDB support, but the GDB communit
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 17:16, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Dmitry Vyukov:
> >>
> >> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
> >> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
> >>
* Dmitry Vyukov:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Dmitry Vyukov:
>>
>> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
>> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
>>
>> I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-e
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov:
>
> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
>
> I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-exec
> or local-exec TLS var
* Dmitry Vyukov:
> Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
> integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-exec
or local-exec TLS variable is reused (whose memory is not managed by
malloc).
Thanks,
F
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc:
>
> > I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
> > ThreadSanitizer runtime:
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
> > Currently it's submitted:
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/
* Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc:
> I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
> ThreadSanitizer runtime:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
> Currently it's submitted:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1784fe0532a69ead17793bced060a9bf9d232027
> but can well be rolled ba
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 13:22, Om Kenge via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> Respected Sir/Madam,
> I am Om Kenge, a Second Year IT Student, I have just entered my second year
> at MMCOE Pune. I am new to open source contributions but I am well aware of
> C++. I would love to contribute to your Organisation
Tha
Hi Alejandro,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:45 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On 11/23/21 12:17, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
> > Hi Alejandro,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via
> > cfe-dev wrote:
> >> First of all,
> >> I see unnecessar
On 22/11/2021 06:40, Jojo R via Gcc wrote:
— Jojo
在 2021年11月20日 +0800 AM6:11,Peter Bergner ,写道:
On 11/19/21 1:28 AM, Jojo R via Gcc wrote:
We know gcc supply earlyclobber function to avoid register overlap,
but it can not describe explicitly for specific source operand, is it right ?
You
Hi Dmitry,
On 11/23/21 12:17, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
Hi Alejandro,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via
cfe-dev wrote:
First of all,
I see unnecessary (probably over-engineered) qualifiers:
- _Null_unspecified seems to me the same as nothing.
If I didn't specify
Hi Alejandro,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:06 AM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via
cfe-dev wrote:
> On 11/16/21 13:34, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> > $ cat _Nonnull.c
> > #include
> >
> > int *_Nonnull f(int *_Nullable p)
> > {
> > if (!p)
> > exit(1);
> > return p;
> >
Hi Alejandro,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via
cfe-dev wrote:
> First of all,
> I see unnecessary (probably over-engineered) qualifiers:
>
> - _Null_unspecified seems to me the same as nothing.
> If I didn't specify its nullability,
> it's by definition unspecifie
13 matches
Mail list logo