On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:20 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:10 -0500 (EST)
>
>> From: Konstantin Serebryany
>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:52:48 +0400
>>
>>> Please apply whatever minimal patch required to unbreak the SPARC
>>> build. We will not be ac
From: David Miller
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:10 -0500 (EST)
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:52:48 +0400
>
>> Please apply whatever minimal patch required to unbreak the SPARC
>> build. We will not be accepting any non-trivial patches until we
>> set up semi-automat
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:52:48 +0400
> Please apply whatever minimal patch required to unbreak the SPARC
> build. We will not be accepting any non-trivial patches until we
> set up semi-automated way to pull the upstream sources.
Will do.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:19:51 +0400
>
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Konstantin Serebryany
>>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
>>>
I really need your help to re
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:19:51 +0400
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Konstantin Serebryany
>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
>>
>>> I really need your help to resolve this mess.
>>
>> I thought it was abundantly clear that the
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
>
>> I really need your help to resolve this mess.
>
> I thought it was abundantly clear that the burdon falls upon the ASAN
> folks, since they are the ones who care about
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
> I really need your help to resolve this mess.
I thought it was abundantly clear that the burdon falls upon the ASAN
folks, since they are the ones who care about the external dependency.
Nobody else inside of the GCC community
>> I assume we are just waiting for someone to commit this to the GCC src,
One possible value of 'someone' is kcc (me), but I *may* not be able
to do it until ~ Monday.
Other possible values of 'someone' are wmi and dvyukov
>> correct? David (Miller), were you going to do that? I'd like that
>>
From: Peter Bergner
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:08:00 -0600
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 13:00 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Konstantin Serebryany
>> > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
>> >
>> >> Ok. Will this work?
>> >>
>
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 13:00 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Konstantin Serebryany
> > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
> >
> >> Ok. Will this work?
> >>
> >> // Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
> >> // x32 (which de
Done: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=168358&view=rev
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
>
>> Ok. Will this work?
>>
>> // Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
>> // x32 (which defines __x86_64__)
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
> Ok. Will this work?
>
> // Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
> // x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32
> // but it still needs to use 64-bit syscalls.
> #if defined(__x86_64__) || __WORDSIZE == 64
> # define
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:34:14 +0400
>
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Konstantin Serebryany
>>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:20:29 +0400
>>>
Please do (the same that was a
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:34:14 +0400
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Konstantin Serebryany
>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:20:29 +0400
>>
>>> Please do (the same that was applied upstream).
>>
>> Which one was that?
> http://llvm.org/vie
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:20:29 +0400
>
>> Please do (the same that was applied upstream).
>
> Which one was that?
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc?r1=
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:20:29 +0400
> Please do (the same that was applied upstream).
Which one was that?
> Please also note:
> - I am on vacation with random access to PC, that's why I did not
> want to rush with my first commits to gcc trunk.
This is actually
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:16 AM, David Miller wrote:
>
> I don't think it's reasonable that the sparc bootstrap is still broken
> in the tree, even though a fix has existed for nearly a week.
>
> It is not acceptable to say "everyone has to apply a special patch
> until some external dependency th
I don't think it's reasonable that the sparc bootstrap is still broken
in the tree, even though a fix has existed for nearly a week.
It is not acceptable to say "everyone has to apply a special patch
until some external dependency that will take an unknown, variable,
length of time to resolve is
18 matches
Mail list logo
