On 31 December 2014 at 13:29, David Abdurachmanov
wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> If we have 64-bit kernel and 64-bit application is executed sys_getresuid is
>>> used for getresuid syscall, otherwise if 32-bit application is executed --
>>> sys_getresuid16 is use
On Dec 30, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> If we have 64-bit kernel and 64-bit application is executed sys_getresuid is
>> used for getresuid syscall, otherwise if 32-bit application is executed --
>> sys_getresuid16 is used. Thus 64-bit application will never call
>> sys_getresuid16 im
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Abdurachmanov
wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:36:42PM +0100, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
>>> I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels
>>> <=3.15,
>>> 3.16 and above are
On Dec 29, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:36:42PM +0100, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
>> I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels
>> <=3.15,
>> 3.16 and above are fine.
>>
>> __kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsi
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:36:42PM +0100, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels <=3.15,
> 3.16 and above are fine.
>
> __kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsigned int to unsigned
> short. <=3.15 kernel will trigger stati
Hi,
I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels <=3.15,
3.16 and above are fine.
__kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsigned int to unsigned
short. <=3.15 kernel will trigger static asserts in libsanitizer while
compiling GCC.
I created PR: https://gcc.
Hi,
I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels <=3.15,
3.16 and above are fine.
__kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsigned int to unsigned
short. <=3.15 kernel will trigger static asserts in libsanitizer while
compiling GCC.
I created PR: https://gcc.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
>>
>> Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
>> rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer && make -j 50
>> make -j 40
+eugenis (what kind of testing on ARM are we doing upstream?)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 14 November 2014 11:38, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 13 November 2014 21:44, Konstantin Serebryany
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I am not sure I understand the problem,
but whatever the problem is I am against using -std=gnu++ as this will
be a different flag combination from what we have upstream.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> Let's continue the discussion there, we can do another merge q
Let's continue the discussion there, we can do another merge quickly
or do a cherry pick to GCC once we have a solution.
So far I don't see one. (other than not supporting the old kernels, of course)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 21:44, Konstantin S
On 14 November 2014 11:38, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 21:44, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:11:16PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> The missing definition in system's /usr/include/linux/types.h is protected
> with:
>
> typedef __u16 __bitwise __le16;
> typedef __u16 __bitwise __be16;
> typedef __u32 __bitwise __le32;
> typedef __u32 __bitwise __be32;
> #if defined
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
>>
>> Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
>> rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer && make -j 50
>> make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
>> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} a
Hello!
> Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
>
> Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
> rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer && make -j 50
> make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} asan.exp' && \
> make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
> RU
On 13 November 2014 21:44, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>>> Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
>>>
>>> Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like t
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
>>
>> Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
>> rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer && make -j 50
>> make -j 40
Konstantin,
Applying the libsanitizer-221802.patch merge to r217456 with
the proposed patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534#c50, produces the
following new regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin14 for asan.exp at
-m32/-m64...
FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/global-overflow-1.c -
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
>
> Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
> rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer && make -j 50
> make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m
Hi,
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer && make -j 50
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} asan.exp' && \
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
RUNTESTFLAGS='--targ
20 matches
Mail list logo
