On 25-Feb-14 01:21, Jeff Law wrote:
I think this should be queued until after 4.9 branches. It's adding a
new capability (posix threading on vxworks), not fixing a bug and
certainly not fixing a regression AFAICT.
Fair enough. It just seems somewhat trivial to me, as it doesn't add
any funct
Hi all,
Just a ping, I haven't gotten anything back on this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00621.html
Thanks!
appear to be too
bad, and there's other platform-specific hacks in that file already.
Thanks,
R Blair Mason
>From 2cf34e06f47345884f234bb870714ed2896745a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 09:11:02 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Allowed posix as a thread option for vxwo
It looks like this message didn't go through; if you get this multiple
times I apologize. I've been having issues so I don't trust that it
sent correctly :/
On 19-Mar-13 03:04, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
Will commit to trunk once the server is up.
Regarding 4.8, we should've really tried to work
On 16-Feb-13 23:21, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On 14/02/2013, at 10:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
Here's the updated, (trivial) patch.
Thanks. I'll apply this once 4.8 branches and trunk is back into development
mode.
Since GCC 4.9 has branched now are you still willing to commit (maybe
On 18-Jan-13 20:35, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On 19/01/2013, at 9:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
-150,7 +158,7 @@ static __gthread_once_t tls_init_guard =
need to read tls_keys.dtor[key] atomically. */
static void
-tls_delete_hook (void *tcb ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
+tls_delete_hook (void *tcb)
Don&#
On 17-Jan-13 20:18, Mike Stump wrote:
You are now entered into the most ignored and most trivial gcc patch
contest. You presently are behind the leader, but, if you can get
another 10 pings in before approval, you can win! Good luck.
Thanks. I know it's trivial, but 1. it's not hard to pin
On 05-Jan-13 23:18, rbmj wrote:
On 06-Dec-12 10:14, rbmj wrote:
On 26-Nov-12 13:27, rbmj wrote:
On 11/13/2012 10:22 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
This removes warnings about implicit declarations and fixes one of the
function calls in vxlib-tls.c for vxworks targets.
I
On 06-Dec-12 10:14, rbmj wrote:
On 26-Nov-12 13:27, rbmj wrote:
On 11/13/2012 10:22 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
This removes warnings about implicit declarations and fixes one of the
function calls in vxlib-tls.c for vxworks targets.
I got the old prototypes from
http
On 26-Nov-12 13:27, rbmj wrote:
On 11/13/2012 10:22 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
This removes warnings about implicit declarations and fixes one of the
function calls in vxlib-tls.c for vxworks targets.
I got the old prototypes from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005
On 11/13/2012 10:22 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
This removes warnings about implicit declarations and fixes one of the
function calls in vxlib-tls.c for vxworks targets.
I got the old prototypes from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01314.html
See bug for
On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
This removes warnings about implicit declarations and fixes one of the
function calls in vxlib-tls.c for vxworks targets.
I got the old prototypes from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01314.html
See bug for further details.
Someone please
types from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01314.html
See bug for further details.
Someone please comment or commit :)
--
Robert Mason
>From d008e235167796417cf6a8f68f7206dc4351b5c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:12:52 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [libg
On 11/1/2012 10:48 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:35 AM, rbmj wrote:
and now my patches will build on top of
trunk. Bruce, can you give steps on how to reproduce the error you
reported?
rm -rf gcc-bld gcc-ins
cp -l gcc-svn gcc-bld
pfx=$PWD/gcc-ins
cd gcc-bld
On 10/29/2012 10:07 PM, rbmj wrote:
I get a clean build on my end... no stdarg.h issues. Build
characteristics are given in the previous email.
On 10/29/2012 4:26 PM, rbmj wrote:
The build does eventually die in libstdc++-v3, but that's not due to
these changes (it gives me an int
I get a clean build on my end... no stdarg.h issues. Build
characteristics are given in the previous email.
On 10/29/2012 4:26 PM, rbmj wrote:
The build does eventually die in libstdc++-v3, but that's not due to
these changes (it gives me an internal compiler error while comp
On 10/29/2012 12:53 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
The first two patches I've applied. The remaining two are needed to fully
enable building the VxWorks flavor of GCC, but those bits affect parts
outside of fixincludes and there is some breakage somewhere.
All evidence seems to me to show fixincludes sti
Forgot to attach...
On 10/2/2012 2:11 PM, rbmj wrote:
Patch 2: [fixincludes] Clean up fixincludes test machinery
TODO Prior to commit:
* fixincl.x: Regenerate
ChangeLog
2012-09-23 Bruce Korb
* check.tpl: export TEST_MODE=true for testing
* fixincl.c (te_verbose): extract to
:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:55:02 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Minor source changes to allow compilation on VxWorks
---
gcc/gcov-io.c |3 ++-
libstdc++-v3/config/os/vxworks/os_defines.h |6 ++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 delet
Patch 3: Add --enable-libstdcxx option at top level configure
TODO prior to commit:
* configure: regenerate
ChangeLog:
* configure.ac: Add --enable-libstdcxx option
>From 3f0d38b7b7b70659a57ac4266701a71a5f948860 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:54:21 -0
Patch 2: [fixincludes] Clean up fixincludes test machinery
TODO Prior to commit:
* fixincl.x: Regenerate
ChangeLog
2012-09-23 Bruce Korb
* check.tpl: export TEST_MODE=true for testing
* fixincl.c (te_verbose): extract to fixlib.h
(run_compiles): in test mode, if the
Forgot to attach.
On 10/2/2012 2:09 PM, rbmj wrote:
Patch 1: [fixincludes] Fixes for VxWorks
TODO Prior to commit:
* fixincl.x: Regenerate
ChangeLog [fixincludes]:
2012-06-19 Robert Mason
* fixinc.in: Check to see if the machine_name fix needs to be
disabled.
viz. vxworks
Patch 1: [fixincludes] Fixes for VxWorks
TODO Prior to commit:
* fixincl.x: Regenerate
ChangeLog [fixincludes]:
2012-06-19 Robert Mason
* fixinc.in: Check to see if the machine_name fix needs to be disabled.
viz. vxworks must not check the machine name for fix applicabilit
On 9/23/2012 7:19 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
The attached patch needs to be split into two and I will do that before
I actually push the thing. Since I have run out of play time this weekend
and since I will be in the Ukraine in two weeks for two weeks, this patch
is unlikely to get pushed before th
Ping? Just did a full pull and rebuild today and everything still works :)
Robert Mason
On 9/10/2012 3:46 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM, rbmj wrote:
On the other hand, I've read this on the website:
Don't mix together changes made for different rea
On 9/10/2012 9:35 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
On 09/09/12 08:54, rbmj wrote:
Just because I *love* bothering everyone with emails...
I don't mind, as long as you don't expect me to do anything
until I'm certain you've stabilized the patch ;)
I'm glad you rolled it up into
fixincl.x: Regenerate
mkfixinc.sh: Removed vxworks from list of no-op fixinc targets
[libstdc++-v3]
config/os/vxworks/os_defines.h: #define'd NOMINMAX
Thanks,
Robert Mason
>From 2ce175a3c94e6d544e27a8f936728fbec8f1f004 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:1
he work you do on GCC, and the help you've given me
to get my patches up to the standard!
Robert Mason
>From f1132398e72e73c549cb7f608a3a43c0f4801bc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:18:10 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 01/12] Added assert fixinclude hack for VxWo
On 8/23/2012 7:54 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 23/08/2012 13:46, rbmj ha scritto:
On 8/23/2012 4:24 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 10/10] Make open() call more compatible in gcc/gcov-io.c
In gcc/gcov-io.c, the call to open() only has two arguments. This
is fine, as long as the system
On 8/25/2012 11:35 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 8/24/2012 4:59 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
Hi Robert,
If you are going to defer, then:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM, rbmj wrote:
diff --git a/fixincludes/fixinc.in b/fixincludes/fixinc.in
index e73aed9..de7be35 100755
--- a/fixincludes/fixinc.in
+++ b
On 8/24/2012 4:59 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
Hi Robert,
If you are going to defer, then:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM, rbmj wrote:
diff --git a/fixincludes/fixinc.in b/fixincludes/fixinc.in
index e73aed9..de7be35 100755
--- a/fixincludes/fixinc.in
+++ b/fixincludes/fixinc.in
@@ -128,6 +128,18
I have two candidate patches. I've tested both and either can supersede
the original 0001-fixincludes-machine_name patch.
The first is the original proposed sed expression:
---
fixincludes/mkfixinc.sh |7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fixincludes/mkf
On 8/22/2012 8:52 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
However I think it might be simpler to tweak mkfixinc.sh to
sed '/if test -s .{MACRO_LIST}/s/$/ && false/' \
${srcdir}/fixinc.in > ${target}
for vxworks rather than all that configury rigmarole.
That would eliminate changes to gcc/configure.ac and
In gcc/gcov-io.c, the call to open() only has two arguments. This
is fine, as long as the system open() is standards compliant.
So you have to add another fixincludes hack, adding a macro indirection
like the one you have for ioctl:
#define open(a, b, ...) __open(a, b , ##__VA_ARGS__, 0660)
On 8/23/2012 4:24 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Some comments on the patches:
+ c_fix_arg = "%0\n"
+ "#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) ((ioctl)((fd), (func),
((int)(arg\n";
This can be simply
#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) ioctl(fd, func, (int)arg)
thanks to C and cpp pre
On 8/22/2012 8:52 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
On 08/22/12 17:05, rbmj wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I have ten patches which are approved or obvious but waiting on commit
The include fixing stuff looks fine to me.
However I think it might be simpler to tweak mkfixinc.sh to
sed '/if te
:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:16:57 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 01/10] Add ability to skip the machine_name fixincludes fix.
On some platforms, machine_name is overzealous, or even breaks things.
This patch adds the functionality to skip the machine_name 'fix' by
giving it an emp
On 06/25/2012 04:02 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:09 PM, rbmj wrote:
I also do not know how to run the test suite for the target system
(powerpc-wrs-vxworks). I would think some sort of powerpc simulator, but I
don't have a firmware image for VxWorks - just header
On 06/21/2012 02:27 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:36 PM, rbmj wrote:
My issue is that I'm uncomfortable with this, as it seems *too* easy.
I'd just be comfortable with a stake in the ground and press forward. I do
think this covers most all the cases.
With that in
On 06/22/2012 06:52 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 06/11/2012 08:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/06/2012 13:56, rbmj ha scritto:
1. VxWorks does not have a variadic open - it must receive three
arguments. gcc/gcov.c however opens a file for reading and does not
pass in a mode argument, which causes an
On 06/11/2012 08:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/06/2012 13:56, rbmj ha scritto:
1. VxWorks does not have a variadic open - it must receive three
arguments. gcc/gcov.c however opens a file for reading and does not
pass in a mode argument, which causes an error on vxWorks. This just
adds a
On 06/21/2012 09:40 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, rbmj wrote:
There is an alternate solution- I could use fixincludes to add a macro to wrap
over mkdir on VxWorks. A couple of possible ways to do this:
1. Define a normal macro to posix-ify it, i.e. #define mkdir(a, b
On 06/11/2012 03:05 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 06/11/2012 08:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/06/2012 13:59, rbmj ha scritto:
On 05/22/2012 04:37 PM, rbmj wrote:
This patch adds an AC_ARG_ENABLE option to build/not build
libstdc++-v3. I wrote the patch in order to allow the user to
override the
On 06/12/2012 08:16 AM, rbmj wrote:
On 06/11/2012 08:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
VxWorks should define TARGET_POSIX_IO if it has both access and
mkdir. Please add it to gcc/config/vxworks.h if this is the case.
I misspoke in my earlier email - sorry for my lack of attention to
detail. The
On 06/13/2012 01:59 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, rbmj wrote:
Since u?int.*_t are already defined, would this work? Or should I use the
non-typedef'd versions? Also, I'm not exactly sure how to run the regression
tests with a cross compiler. I'm still ne
On 06/12/2012 04:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, rbmj wrote:
On 06/12/2012 11:47 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, rbmj wrote:
The stdint.h doesn't have all the typedefs needed for standards
compliance, so add a hack that adds all of the needed typedefs
On 06/12/2012 11:47 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, rbmj wrote:
The stdint.h doesn't have all the typedefs needed for standards
compliance, so add a hack that adds all of the needed typedefs
to be fully compliant to the standard. Fixes broken libstdc++.
If you'r
On 06/11/2012 08:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/06/2012 13:56, rbmj ha scritto:
... simply pass the extra mode argument in unconditionally,
as it should be transparent to the function and ignored if it is
variadic (I'm no expert on calling conventions though).
Yes, please do this.
On 06/11/2012 08:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/06/2012 13:59, rbmj ha scritto:
On 05/22/2012 04:37 PM, rbmj wrote:
This patch adds an AC_ARG_ENABLE option to build/not build
libstdc++-v3. I wrote the patch in order to allow the user to
override the automatic disable for libstdc++-v3 for
On 06/10/2012 02:38 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/06/12 17:33, rbmj wrote:
Hi everyone,
This patch series is the result of this [1] thread about fixincludes on
VxWorks.
It resolves bugs 53457 and 53378, and a few other issues that
On 05/22/2012 04:37 PM, rbmj wrote:
This patch adds an AC_ARG_ENABLE option to build/not build
libstdc++-v3. I wrote the patch in order to allow the user to
override the automatic disable for libstdc++-v3 for certain targets.
Ping^2 on http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01525.html
Hi everyone,
Ping RE: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00086.html
Thanks,
Robert Mason
On 06/01/2012 02:43 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 06/01/2012 02:40 PM, rbmj wrote:
Hi everyone,
These fixes are to allow building on vxWorks. Currently there are
two issues:
1. VxWorks does not
On 06/06/2012 01:11 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
On 06/06/12 09:33, rbmj wrote:
Hi everyone,
OK, I'm slow. I just woke up from a late night. "test -r vxWorks.h"
is the mechanism to ensure that tests only fire on a vxworks platform.
Seems a bit obscure, but if it is easier than o
ludes/fixincl.x: Regenerate
---
fixincludes/inclhack.def | 17 +
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>From e30ed6b06659f1d88fc76ea6fe83408bc6d3060c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:21:37 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 7/7] Add fix to make write
.
Changes:
* fixincludes/inclhack.def: Added vxworks_ioctl_macro fix
---
fixincludes/inclhack.def | 16
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>From 3a52d77fdbf4c422a1e641402794ce8eda47f410 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:16:26 -0
--
fixincludes/inclhack.def | 14 ++
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>From 2aa0effcb0e5b617e099a8390ce97677ba27a49a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:07:32 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 5/7] Add fix to prevent accidental inclusion of regs.h on
ludes/inclhack.def | 26 ++
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>From e389d506193e80713b9511713a220867159f5a8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:02:08 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 4/7] Add unistd.h wrapper for VxWorks.
On VxWorks,
k.def | 44
1 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>From a50ecd253f6e7fa4a6558ebce0578c5f48ccbc17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:26:57 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 3/7] Add stdint.h wrapper for VxWorks.
The stdint.h
ions(-)
>From d2cbe2a8f546abf5713e8a6ed614ef2eac1f749b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:18:10 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 2/7] Added assert fixinclude hack for VxWorks.
VxWorks's assert.h relies on adjacent string tokens being joined,
and uses macros for some of the strings (e.g. __FILE__). Howev
+
gcc/configure.ac| 14 ++
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>From 76bc7ef3c6a21502dd7af5b4427080b2cdd3cdd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:16:57 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Add ability to skip the machine_name fixincludes fix.
On s
Hi everyone,
This patch series is the result of this [1] thread about fixincludes on
VxWorks. It resolves bugs 53457 and 53378, and a few other issues that
previously required manual intervention to fix for VxWorks header files.
The fixes are tested and work correctly both with make stmp-fix
On 06/04/2012 04:32 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Remember that all the libstdc++-v3 patches should also go to
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org.
This isn't really a libstdc++ patch - it's actually a patch against
top-level configure.ac that doesn't touch the libstdc++-v3 subdirectory.
But if I should still cr
On 05/22/2012 04:37 PM, rbmj wrote:
This patch adds an AC_ARG_ENABLE option to build/not build
libstdc++-v3. I wrote the patch in order to allow the user to
override the automatic disable for libstdc++-v3 for certain targets.
Hi all,
What are the barriers to getting this in? I wrote this
On 06/01/2012 02:40 PM, rbmj wrote:
Hi everyone,
These fixes are to allow building on vxWorks. Currently there are two
issues:
1. VxWorks does not have a variadic open - it must receive three
arguments. gcc/gcov.c however opens a file for reading and does not
pass in a mode argument
ve the variadic open(), and this is true.
However, as far as I know, this version is still not available for
kernel modules, only real-time processes.
Thanks,
Robert Mason
>From ad3b2df4d172eea2e0edfd61153133b25a7ed640 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:42:37 -0400
Su
Hi all,
In libgfortran/intrinsics/time_1.h:181, there is a typo that refers to
user_usecs (should be user_usec). This patch fixes it. I don't have
commit access, so someone please apply this for me. It should be obvious.
Robert Mason
diff --git a/libgfortran/intrinsics/time_1.h b/libgfor
115 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:32:02 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Added --enable-libstdc++-v3 option.
---
configure.ac | 38 +-
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index 378e
On 05/22/2012 03:42 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 05/22/2012 03:06 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
The attached patches fix compilation issues on VxWorks.
a) VxWorks has strerror_r but c
. But on vxworks
targets there is no glibc.
I also patched the configure.host script in order to add this in.
Any opinions?
Robert Mason
>From f9449738730fa0d460a30affa826a157bf97cf62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rbmj
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:56:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] Add FPU Supp
On 05/16/2012 08:06 AM, rbmj wrote:
On 05/16/2012 07:26 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 05/16/2012 08:45 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
IMHO it would be cleaner if you instead somewhere in the beginning of
unix.c did
#ifdef __VXWORKS__
On 05/16/2012 07:26 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 05/16/2012 08:45 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
IMHO it would be cleaner if you instead somewhere in the beginning of
unix.c did
#ifdef __VXWORKS__
/* open is not a variadic function on vxwork
On 05/01/2012 09:14 PM, rbmj wrote:
These minor changes are needed to build libstdc++ on vxWorks.
Note- these diffs are based off of gcc 4.7.0
Bump? I'm sorry for not following all the protocols, but I did create a
bug afterwards and I've waited a while. I know it's trivial
. */
if (access (filename, F_OK) == -1
-#ifdef TARGET_POSIX_IO
+#if defined(TARGET_POSIX_IO) && !defined(__VXWORKS__)
&& mkdir (filename, 0755) == -1
#else
&& mkdir (filename) == -1
--
rbmj
73 matches
Mail list logo
