Rainer Orth wrote:
maybe this is enough to cover all bases without having to do any version
or
target checks. (untested)
objdump is not available on quite a few Darwin versions with perfectly
functional
uleb128 - so I don’t want to punt on those for absence of it. We already
check for
otoo
Hi Iain,
> maybe this is enough to cover all bases without having to do any version or
> target checks. (untested)
>
> objdump is not available on quite a few Darwin versions with perfectly
> functional
> uleb128 - so I don’t want to punt on those for absence of it. We already
> check for
> otool
Hi folks,
Rainer Orth wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 02:26:58PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
which shows that the problem is detected in the depths of
libbacktrace's DWARF reader. There's something completely off in
places, like line numbers well beyond the end of dwarf.c.
TBH, I don't rea
Hi Jakub,
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 02:26:58PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> which shows that the problem is detected in the depths of
>> libbacktrace's DWARF reader. There's something completely off in
>> places, like line numbers well beyond the end of dwarf.c.
>>
>> TBH, I don't really
On 26/11/2020 14:48, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Rainer Orth wrote:
unfortunately, Solaris/SPARC results are miserable:
So without further investigation, we cannot use the leb128 directives
with Solaris/SPARC as.
I think Andrew was running GCN (not sure of the results there)
- but, I suppose tha
Rainer Orth wrote:
unfortunately, Solaris/SPARC results are miserable:
So without further investigation, we cannot use the leb128 directives
with Solaris/SPARC as.
I think Andrew was running GCN (not sure of the results there)
- but, I suppose that the simplest modification is to do
eli
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 02:26:58PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> which shows that the problem is detected in the depths of
> libbacktrace's DWARF reader. There's something completely off in
> places, like line numbers well beyond the end of dwarf.c.
>
> TBH, I don't really feel like diving
Hi Iain,
>> unfortunately, Solaris/SPARC results are miserable:
>>
>> * About 1600 Go tests FAIL, spread across go.*, libgo, and gotools, all
>> in the same way, it seems:
>>
>> +FAIL: go.go-torture/execute/array-1.go execution, -O0
>>
>> fatal error: DWARF underflow in .debug_line at 3266879
>>
Hi Rainer,
Rainer Orth wrote:
The ports I know of that can benefit from a change here are:
[...]
Solaris (bootstrapped and tests running on GCC211, but maybe Rainer would
want wider checks).
I've just manually tried the augmented test on Solaris 10-11.4, SPARC
and x86. While th
Hi Iain,
>> The ports I know of that can benefit from a change here are:
> [...]
>> Solaris (bootstrapped and tests running on GCC211, but maybe Rainer would
>> want wider checks).
>
> I've just manually tried the augmented test on Solaris 10-11.4, SPARC
> and x86. While the Solaris/S
On 11/25/20 2:49 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’ve had this patch in my Darwin trees for (literally) years, it is
> relevant to
> the GCC ports that use a non-binutils assembler.
>
> At present, even if such an assembler supports LEB128, the GCC config
> is setting HAVE_LEB128 = 0.
>
> The
Hi Iain,
> I’ve had this patch in my Darwin trees for (literally) years, it is
> relevant to
> the GCC ports that use a non-binutils assembler.
>
> At present, even if such an assembler supports LEB128, the GCC config
> is setting HAVE_LEB128 = 0.
>
> The ports I know of that can benefit from a c
12 matches
Mail list logo
