On 07/03/2013 21:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Either Anthony or I review libffi patches in gcc.
Perhaps you two should list yourselves as such in MAINTAINERS, for the
avoidance of doubt?
> You're not going to get any more reviews.
I committed it. Thanks for the clarification.
cheers,
Hi,
At Mozilla, we've encountered a GCC 4.6 miscompilation in the ARMv6
build of Firefox for Android. We'd like to evaluate whether this bug is
hitting us in more places than the one we spotted. To that end, we'd
need to know what particular bug in GCC leads to this miscompilation.
The attached f
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Mozilla, we've encountered a GCC 4.6 miscompilation in the ARMv6
> build of Firefox for Android. We'd like to evaluate whether this bug is
> hitting us in more places than the one we spotted. To that end, we'd
> need to know what par
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I am not a fan of the new definition of a regression. Yes the new
> definition helps out release managers but it does not help out our
> users at all. In fact I think it hurts them more as some don't update
> as fast as the release managers think they d
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:28:22AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > At Mozilla, we've encountered a GCC 4.6 miscompilation in the ARMv6
>> > build of Firefox for Android. We'
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:00:52PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
>> if caller(s) to that function is located in another object.
>
> That is not exactly
2013/3/5 Jeffrey Walton :
> Hi All,
[...]
>
> void func (short);
> void short_test (void)
> { short x = 0;
>func(x);
> }
>
> From the bug report example above, the warning is telling me there
> would be a problem if `void func (short);` was not present since it
> would be assumed to be `void f
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:28:49PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:00:52PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
...
> >> Here is what I mean:
> >>
> >> int func(int a, .)
> >> {
> >> if (a==some_const
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:14:03AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:28:22AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Mike Hommey
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:14:03AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:28:22AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > >>
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > Mike Hommey writes:
> > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:14:03AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Mike Hommey
> > wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:28:22
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:34:30AM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > > This test case is not self-contained. Please file a proper bug report
> > > with a self-contained test case.
> >
> > It is, as long as you don't want to make a library or program out of it:
> >
> > $ arm-linux-android
On 06/03/2013 16:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> If no new P1 appears within a week,
I may be about to file one. What priority would "Java doesn't compile on a
secondary platform" count as? There's a trivial bug in libffi and I already
posted a patch(*) to both -patches and upstream, but am waiti
> I emit (clobber (reg:CC CCreg)) with every instruction that can set
> condition codes, but it appears that nearly all of them are removed before
> we reach reorg where mark_referenced_resources() or mark_set_resources()
> would detect a conflict of the CCreg's.
Clobbers shouldn't be removed if
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 16:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> If no new P1 appears within a week,
>
> I may be about to file one. What priority would "Java doesn't compile on a
> secondary platform" count as? There's a trivial bug in libffi and I already
> p
On 03/07/2013 02:09 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 16:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> If no new P1 appears within a week,
>
> I may be about to file one. What priority would "Java doesn't compile on a
> secondary platform" count as? There's a trivial bug in libffi and I already
> posted
On 07/03/2013 16:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 02:09 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 06/03/2013 16:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> If no new P1 appears within a week,
>> I may be about to file one. What priority would "Java doesn't compile on a
>> secondary platform" count as? There's a t
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:23:20PM +, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 16:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 03/07/2013 02:09 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2013 16:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >>> If no new P1 appears within a week,
> >> I may be about to file one. What priority would "
On 03/07/2013 08:23 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 16:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/07/2013 02:09 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2013 16:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
If no new P1 appears within a week,
>>> I may be about to file one. What priority would "Java doesn't compile on
19 matches
Mail list logo
