"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Acutally -std=c?9, -std=gnu?9 uses GCC's alloca. I don't mind finding
> all the alloca uses in the tree and compiling them with -std=gnu99
> instead of -std=c99.
#define alloca(sz) __builtin_alloca(sz)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:44:51AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > + leal24(%esp), %eax /* base of newly allocated space */
>
> After I figured out what the 24(...) meant ("add 24 to ...") it's
> clear that this isn't a fix (except in the specia
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> alloca() is not being inlined when -std is specified. It is possible
> there's a bug in the libc implementation. I'm also suspicious that
> some of the ppp data structures have changed size or alignment which
> could be confusing ne
< said:
> Sounds like alloca() should simply be stricken from libc
> on all architectures.
Yes. (For values of `all' being `i386'.)
> Might also be a good idea to begin removing uses of it.
Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong, intrinsically, with using
alloca(), although much but not all o
Garrett Wollman wrote:
alloca() in libc is *fundamentally* broken. Only the compiler can
know the current state of the stack frame...
Sounds like alloca() should simply be stricken from libc
on all architectures.
Might also be a good idea to begin removing uses of it.
Searching through the sour
< said:
> Misbehaving in what way? CSTD=c99 causes gcc to use alloca() from
> libc instead of its builtin version. Perhaps alloca() in libc is
> broken -- any bugs in it would have been covered up by gcc until
> now.
alloca() in libc is *fundamentally* broken. Only the compiler can
know the curr
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:44:51AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> + leal24(%esp), %eax /* base of newly allocated space */
After I figured out what the 24(...) meant ("add 24 to ...") it's
clear that this isn't a fix (except in the special case of PPPoE
support ;-). gcc's builtin inline
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:38:36AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Okay, it looks like alloca.S was broken. My previous patch that
> increased the size of allocations was just a gratuitous difference
> with the inline version, and is not necessary. Here's a fix that
> seems to get ppp to stop comp
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:18:12AM +0200, Wiktor Niesiobedzki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:50:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> > > >Can you try backing out bsd.sys.mk to r1.26 and rebuild your world and
> > > >kernel? La
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:05:57PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> It looks like gcc's inline alloca implementation allocates chunks in
> larger chunks than the alloca.S implementation does. This (untested)
> patch should make the alloca.S behaviour match that of gcc.
I suspect that there's a buff
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:18:12AM +0200, Wiktor Niesiobedzki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:50:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> > > >Can you try backing out bsd.sys.mk to r1.26 and rebuild your world and
> > > >kernel? La
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:18:12AM +0200, Wiktor Niesiobedzki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:50:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> > > >Can you try backing out bsd.sys.mk to r1.26 and rebuild your world and
> > > >kernel? L
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:18:12AM +0200, Wiktor Niesiobedzki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:50:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> > > >Can you try backing out bsd.sys.mk to r1.26 and rebuild your world and
> > > >kernel? La
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:50:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> > >Can you try backing out bsd.sys.mk to r1.26 and rebuild your world and
> > >kernel? Later versions of this file are causing strange problems >with
> > >package bui
>Thanks, that's actually more useful because it isolates the problem.
>It's probably something in ppp that is misbehaving with CSTD=c99.
True. A simple rebuild of ppp (without libc, etc.) didn't change anything.
Andrew Lankford
__
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> >Can you try backing out bsd.sys.mk to r1.26 and rebuild your world and
> >kernel? Later versions of this file are causing strange problems >with package
> >builds.
>
> I was a little lazy and just backed out bsd.sys.mk to 1.26 a
>Can you try backing out bsd.sys.mk to r1.26 and rebuild your world and
>kernel? Later versions of this file are causing strange problems >with package
>builds.
I was a little lazy and just backed out bsd.sys.mk to 1.26 as you suggested, rebuilt
/usr/lib/ , /usr/include/, and ppp. My kernel is
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:04, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> I'm having trouble with the latest build of -CURRENT as well. Same
> problem, slightly different symptoms:
>
> Portions of my config file:
> disable ipv6
> deny pap
>
> set device PPPoE:xl0
>
> ...produce this in the log (repeatedly):
>
> Jun 11
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:34:39PM -0400, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> I'm having trouble with the latest build of -CURRENT as well. Same problem,
> slightly different symptoms:
>
> Portions of my config file:
> disable ipv6
> deny pap
>
> set device PPPoE:xl0
>
> ...produce this in the log (repea
I'm having trouble with the latest build of -CURRENT as well. Same problem, slightly
different symptoms:
Portions of my config file:
disable ipv6
deny pap
set device PPPoE:xl0
...produce this in the log (repeatedly):
Jun 11 22:00:14 bogushost2 ppp[222]: Warning: Unexpected node type ``socke
Michael wrote on Wednesday, June 11, 2003, 10:02:25 AM:
> Are you sure you really have 5.1-RELEASE and not 5-CURRENT shortly
> after -RELEASE? There have been many other reports on pppoe related
> breakage with ppp in -CURRENT, but 5.1-RELEASE should work (at least
> it works fine for me).
I defin
Gerald wrote on Wednesday, June 11, 2003, 9:43:02 AM:
> Well, does your DSL Provider really support IPV6 ? Actually for me it seems
> that you try to establish an ipv6 connection, which is rarley supported!
That is interesting; I can't see where it appears to be this though.
Perhaps something in (
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Gerald Mixa wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2003 13:53, T. Muddletin wrote:
>
> Well, does your DSL Provider really support IPV6 ? Actually for me it seems
> that you try to establish an ipv6 connection, which is rarley supported!
> > On my previous FreeBSD version (5.0 April 21
On Wednesday 11 June 2003 13:53, T. Muddletin wrote:
> On my previous FreeBSD version (5.0 April 21 snapshot), my ADSL/pppoe
> setup worked fine... as it always has all the way back to 4.x. Now
> having installed 5.1-RELEASE, with no other changes, ppp no longer can
> seeming no longer connect to m
On Wednesday 11 June 2003 13:53, T. Muddletin wrote:
Well, does your DSL Provider really support IPV6 ? Actually for me it seems
that you try to establish an ipv6 connection, which is rarley supported!
> On my previous FreeBSD version (5.0 April 21 snapshot), my ADSL/pppoe
> setup worked fine...
On my previous FreeBSD version (5.0 April 21 snapshot), my ADSL/pppoe
setup worked fine... as it always has all the way back to 4.x. Now
having installed 5.1-RELEASE, with no other changes, ppp no longer can
seeming no longer connect to my adsl modem. I've been struggling with
this for days.
Is a
26 matches
Mail list logo
