On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 09:18 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 08:45 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > I understand Khem is excitant to include more non-upstreamed
> > > patches
> > > into GCC but I would prefer to have
> Am 13.10.2015 um 18:49 schrieb Khem Raj :
>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Otavio Salvador
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jens and Khem,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Am 12.10.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Khem Raj :
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Jens Rehsack
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
>
> Hello Jens and Khem,
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>> Am 12.10.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Khem Raj :
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> Am 08.10.2015 um 18:40 schrieb Khem Raj :
>>>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 08:45 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> I understand Khem is excitant to include more non-upstreamed patches
>> into GCC but I would prefer to have it included and Java working fine
>> than a local patch applied forever.
On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 08:45 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I understand Khem is excitant to include more non-upstreamed patches
> into GCC but I would prefer to have it included and Java working fine
> than a local patch applied forever. :-(
Maybe you'd like to file a bug against upstream GCC in
Hello Jens and Khem,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>> Am 12.10.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Khem Raj :
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Am 08.10.2015 um 18:40 schrieb Khem Raj :
>>> [...]
>>> During hacking on the fix in meta/conf/machine/ I recognized
> Am 12.10.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Khem Raj :
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08.10.2015 um 18:40 schrieb Khem Raj :
>> [...]
>> During hacking on the fix in meta/conf/machine/ I recognized that the
>> expected thump suffix in meta/conf/machine/include/tune-arm
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>
>> Am 08.10.2015 um 18:40 schrieb Khem Raj :
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>>
>>>
Am 08.10.2015 um 16:46 schrieb Khem Raj :
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 08.10.2015 um 18:40 schrieb Khem Raj :
>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 08.10.2015 um 16:46 schrieb Khem Raj :
>>>
>>>
On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
[Icedtee Ticket #2153] -- see
http://icedtea.classpath
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>
>
>> Am 08.10.2015 um 16:46 schrieb Khem Raj :
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [Icedtee Ticket #2153] -- see
>>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2153
>>>
>>> This patch prevent
> Am 08.10.2015 um 16:46 schrieb Khem Raj :
>
>
>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>
>>
>> [Icedtee Ticket #2153] -- see
>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2153
>>
>> This patch prevents gcc generate code on ARM5e accessing 64 bit values,
>> because g
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>
>
> [Icedtee Ticket #2153] -- see
> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2153
>
> This patch prevents gcc generate code on ARM5e accessing 64 bit values,
> because gcc doesn't ensure they're 64 bit aligned.
> Accessing a 64
[Icedtee Ticket #2153] -- see
http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2153
This patch prevents gcc generate code on ARM5e accessing 64 bit values, because
gcc doesn't ensure they're 64 bit aligned.
Accessing a 64 bit value from a 32 bit alignment causes segmentation faults.
Patch
13 matches
Mail list logo
