On Tuesday 07 February 2012 12:53:24 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 12:17:59PM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> Everything still works on FreeBSD.
>
> After discussion about this on IRC Richard expressed his preference
> for the following variant instead:
Works too.
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 01:13:35PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > So, if this mess is really needed (does anybody actually use -mcall-freebsd
> > on non-freebsd targets?), IMHO freebsd-spec.h must avoid defining non-FBSD_
>
> I've argued for a long
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, if this mess is really needed (does anybody actually use -mcall-freebsd
> on non-freebsd targets?), IMHO freebsd-spec.h must avoid defining non-FBSD_
I've argued for a long time that the -mcall-* support should be removed
and targets using rs6000/sy
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 12:17:59PM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> Everything still works on FreeBSD.
>
> After discussion about this on IRC Richard expressed his preference
> for the following variant instead:
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> 2012-
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 12:17:59PM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> Everything still works on FreeBSD.
After discussion about this on IRC Richard expressed his preference
for the following variant instead:
2012-02-07 Jakub Jelinek
* config/freebsd-spec.h: Add comment about what macros c
On Tuesday 07 February 2012 09:54:43 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:03:27PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
I've been using this patch now. It's similar to the above url
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:03:27PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> >> I've been using this patch now. It's similar to the above url,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:03:27PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> >> I've been using this patch now. It's similar to the above url, but
> >> conditional on TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_SSP to support
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> I've been using this patch now. It's similar to the above url, but
>> conditional on TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_SSP to support older FreeBSD
>> versions.
>>
>> Gerald volunteered to commit. Gerald, ju
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> I've been using this patch now. It's similar to the above url, but
> conditional on TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_SSP to support older FreeBSD
> versions.
>
> Gerald volunteered to commit. Gerald, just trunk for now or older
> branches too?
If Richi agries, I'd
On Wednesday 11 January 2012 10:06:42 Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> On Tuesday 10 January 2012 15:40:15 Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Tijl Coosema
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 January 2012 15:40:15 Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On targets where libc implements stack protector fun
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 15:40:15 Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>>> On targets where libc implements stack protector functions (GNU libc,
>>> FreeBSD libc), and where gcc (as an opti
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> On targets where libc implements stack protector functions (GNU libc,
>> FreeBSD libc), and where gcc (as an optimisation) generates calls to
>> a locally defined __stack_chk_fail_
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On targets where libc implements stack protector functions (GNU libc,
> FreeBSD libc), and where gcc (as an optimisation) generates calls to
> a locally defined __stack_chk_fail_local instead of directly calling
> the global function __stack
On targets where libc implements stack protector functions (GNU libc,
FreeBSD libc), and where gcc (as an optimisation) generates calls to
a locally defined __stack_chk_fail_local instead of directly calling
the global function __stack_chk_fail (e.g. -fpic code on i386), one
must explicitly specify
16 matches
Mail list logo
