Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-15 Thread Iain Sandoe
Hi Dominique, On 15 Mar 2012, at 18:46, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: I have posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg01799.html the regtests on powerpc-apple-darwin9 with the patch. I still get the following failures thanks - I think the priority is to get this (unwind) patc

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-15 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
Iain, I have posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg01799.html the regtests on powerpc-apple-darwin9 with the patch. I still get the following failures FAIL: libffi.call/err_bad_abi.c -O0 -W -Wall execution test FAIL: libffi.call/err_bad_abi.c -O2 execution test FAIL: libffi.c

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-09 Thread Mike Stump
On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:45 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > The patch restores libffi/libjava to the pre-merge results. > Mike, do you know any special reason that indirect-pcrel was being used there? Nope. The gcc repo has all the pointers to people that did all the changes... > .. or, is this OK for tru

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-09 Thread Iain Sandoe
Hello Anthony, On 4 Mar 2012, at 21:20, Anthony Green wrote: The attached patch includes changes that have been reviewed, approved and merged into the stand-alone libffi release tree**. This hunk (and an identical change in src/powerpc/darwin.S) .. Index: src/powerpc/darwin_closure.S ==

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-05 Thread Richard Kenner
> My personal opinion is that it is better if open source software is not > encumbered by multiple copyright > holders. A copyright holder probably has the right to change the work's > permission notice. Off-topic, but that works both ways: if you want to ensure that a work's license's terms wi

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-05 Thread John David Anglin
On 3/4/2012 11:18 PM, Anthony Green wrote: On 3/4/2012 10:22 PM, John David Anglin wrote: I'm just wondering why Anthony Green and Redhat are listed as copyright holders. I can understand the Free Software Foundation addition since the file was contributed to it. Simply because of changes tha

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-04 Thread Anthony Green
On 3/4/2012 10:22 PM, John David Anglin wrote: I'm just wondering why Anthony Green and Redhat are listed as copyright holders. I can understand the Free Software Foundation addition since the file was contributed to it. Simply because of changes that were made to that source file over the ye

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-04 Thread John David Anglin
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012, Anthony Green wrote: > Hello, > > The attached patch includes changes that have been reviewed, approved and > merged into the stand-alone libffi release tree**. > Tested on x86_64 linux with no regressions, and committed. > > Thanks, > Anthony Green I'd like to question some

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-04 Thread Anthony Green
On 3/4/2012 7:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 04.03.2012 22:20, Anthony Green wrote: Hello, The attached patch includes changes that have been reviewed, approved and merged into the stand-alone libffi release tree**. ** http://github.com/atgreen/libffi does this correspond to a libffi rele

Re: [patch, libffi] Sync merge libffi

2012-03-04 Thread Matthias Klose
On 04.03.2012 22:20, Anthony Green wrote: Hello, The attached patch includes changes that have been reviewed, approved and merged into the stand-alone libffi release tree**. ** http://github.com/atgreen/libffi does this correspond to a libffi release or release candidate?