On 8/25/17, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 16/08/17 18:38, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>> I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that
>>> the server restore is now complete?
>>
>> No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrup
On 16/08/17 18:38, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that
>> the server restore is now complete?
>
> No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrupted or
> missing files by comparison wi
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
> >> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote:
> I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that
> the server restore is now complete?
No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrupted or
missing files by comparison with the last backup.
My expectation is that all
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the res
On 8/15/17, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>>> message looks
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 10:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
> > > was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.o
On 08/15/2017 10:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01303.html
(Strangely, 81841 is there, as is 8
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
> was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01303.html
>
> (Strangely, 81841 is there, as is 81839.)
That's another 81839 replac
On 08/15/2017 07:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
message looks like
On 15/08/17 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the rest of gcc.gnu.org h
On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
Even if it were possible, the
-dae...@sourceware.org
Date: 14 Aug 2017 22:03:54 -
Subject: failure notice
To: eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sor
Hi Ilya,
Let me respond to your first question. I am not so much well versed with
the requirements of the second question.
Yes, your conclusions are correct. You can find some more details in
slides 39/62 to 61/62 in
http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/grc/gcc-workshop-13/downloads/slides/Day2/gccw13-
Diffs between stage2 and stage3.
on configure libiberty for stage3 I see this warnings:
configure:4962: checking for limits.h
configure:4962: /home/root/gcc-build/build/gcc-trunk/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/root/gcc-build/build/gcc-trunk/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-openbsd5.0/bin/
-B/usr/local/
ส่งจากโทรศัพท์ Nokia ของฉัน
-ข้อความต้นฉบับ-
จาก: five...@hotmail.com
ส่งแล้ว: 18-03-2011 20:41:40
หัวข้อ: ส่งไม่ได้: ส่งต่อ: failure notice
อีเมลไม่ถูกต้อง: 0876167523
-ข้อความต้นฉบับ-
ส่งจากโทรศัพท์ Nokia ของฉัน
-ข้อความต้นฉบับ-
จาก: mailer-dae...@sourceware.org
G Shyam Sundar wrote:
> Hi,
>I am working with a kernel module, which was compiled using GCC
> 4.X, for x86_64 platform.
>After dis-assembling the module object file, I see that the callq
> function is always called with the next instruction of the code as the
> target address(based on IP o
G Shyam Sundar wrote on 30 July 2008 10:24:
>What I want to understand is, how function calls work here?
Google "linking".
> I am not sure if this is the right list for this query. Please point
> me to the right one if this is not.
This is a binutils question really.
cheers,
Hi,
I am working with a kernel module, which was compiled using GCC
4.X, for x86_64 platform.
After dis-assembling the module object file, I see that the callq
function is always called with the next instruction of the code as the
target address(based on IP only), as the offset feild followin
19 matches
Mail list logo
