On 9/23/22 10:12, Thomas Neumann wrote:
+static const bool in_shutdown = false;
I'll let Jason or others decide if this is the right solution. It
seems that in_shutdown also could be declared outside the #ifdef and
initialized as "false".
sure, either is fine. Moving it outside the #if
Hi Iain,
You might also want to include Rainer’s patch,
AFAIR patches to fix bootstrap are allowed to proceed as an exception to
the usual rules,
I was not aware of that. I have pushed the patch below now (including
Rainer's change), I will update the code if requested.
Best
Thomas
f
> On 26 Sep 2022, at 12:49, Thomas Neumann via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> Hi Claudiu,
>
>> This change prohibits compiling of ARC backend:
>>> + gcc_assert (in_shutdown || ob);
>> in_shutdown is only defined when ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH is defined,
>> while gcc_assert is outside of any ifdef. Pl
Thanks, I haven't observed it.
Waiting for it,
Claudiu
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 2:49 PM Thomas Neumann wrote:
>
> Hi Claudiu,
>
> > This change prohibits compiling of ARC backend:
> >
> >> + gcc_assert (in_shutdown || ob);
> >
> > in_shutdown is only defined when ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH is defined,
Hi Claudiu,
This change prohibits compiling of ARC backend:
+ gcc_assert (in_shutdown || ob);
in_shutdown is only defined when ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH is defined,
while gcc_assert is outside of any ifdef. Please can you revisit this
line and change it accordingly.
I have a patch ready, I am
Hi Thomas,
This change prohibits compiling of ARC backend:
> + gcc_assert (in_shutdown || ob);
in_shutdown is only defined when ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH is defined,
while gcc_assert is outside of any ifdef. Please can you revisit this
line and change it accordingly.
Thanks,
Claudiu
Hi Jeff,
>>> Thanks for the patch. I'll let you and Jason decide which style solution
>>> is preferred.
>> This also breaks bootstrap on Darwin at least, so an early solution would be
>> welcome (the fix here allows bootstrap to continue, testing on-going).
>> thanks,
>
> I'm using it in the auto
On 9/25/22 00:29, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 23 Sep 2022, at 15:30, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:12 AM Thomas Neumann wrote:
+static const bool in_shutdown = false;
I'll let Jason or others decide if this is the right solution. It seems
that in_shutd
> On 23 Sep 2022, at 15:30, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:12 AM Thomas Neumann wrote:
>
>>>
>>>+static const bool in_shutdown = false;
>>>
>>> I'll let Jason or others decide if this is the right solution. It seems
>>> that in_shutdown also co
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:12 AM Thomas Neumann wrote:
> >
> > +static const bool in_shutdown = false;
> >
> > I'll let Jason or others decide if this is the right solution. It seems
> > that in_shutdown also could be declared outside the #ifdef and
> > initialized as "false".
>
> sure, eith
+static const bool in_shutdown = false;
I'll let Jason or others decide if this is the right solution. It seems
that in_shutdown also could be declared outside the #ifdef and
initialized as "false".
sure, either is fine. Moving it outside the #ifdef wastes one byte in
the executable (w
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 9:38 AM Thomas Neumann wrote:
> > This patch broke bootstrap on AIX and probably other targets.
> >
> > #ifdef ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH
> > #include "unwind-dw2-btree.h"
> >
> > static struct btree registered_frames;
> > static bool in_shutdown;
> > ...
> > #else
> >
> > in_sh
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 9:38 AM Thomas Neumann wrote:
> > This patch broke bootstrap on AIX and probably other targets.
> >
> > #ifdef ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH
> > #include "unwind-dw2-btree.h"
> >
> > static struct btree registered_frames;
> > static bool in_shutdown;
> > ...
> > #else
> >
> > in_sh
This patch broke bootstrap on AIX and probably other targets.
#ifdef ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH
#include "unwind-dw2-btree.h"
static struct btree registered_frames;
static bool in_shutdown;
...
#else
in_shutdown only is defined for ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH but used in code /
asserts not protected by tha
On 9/19/22 12:20, Thomas Neumann wrote:
In some scenarios (e.g., when mixing gcc and clang code), it can
happen that frames are deregistered after the lookup structure
has already been destroyed. That in itself would be fine, but
it triggers an assert in __deregister_frame_info_bases that
expects
In some scenarios (e.g., when mixing gcc and clang code), it can
happen that frames are deregistered after the lookup structure
has already been destroyed. That in itself would be fine, but
it triggers an assert in __deregister_frame_info_bases that
expects to find the frame.
To avoid that, we no
16 matches
Mail list logo
