a way to configure LLDB with script support?
I think you need to use the ports lldb.
--
Rui Paulo
___
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
/FreeBSD_HEAD_external_toolchain_gcc/sys/sys/malloc.h:177:6: note:
previous declaration of 'free' was here
void free(void *addr, struct malloc_type *type);
It shouldn't be using the stdlib when it's built with -ffreestanding or
-nostdlib. Can you make sure?
--
Rui Paulo
the compiler decided to inline a few functions.
Unfortunately, I never saw any difference between -Os and -O2 in all of my
tests (boot2 and other code).
--
Rui Paulo
___
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
rpaulo added a subscriber: rpaulo.
rpaulo accepted this revision.
rpaulo added a reviewer: rpaulo.
rpaulo added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Reviewed.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1819
To: emaste, gnn, rpaulo
Cc: rpaulo, freebsd-toolchain
rpaulo accepted this revision.
rpaulo added a reviewer: rpaulo.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1682
To: emaste, rpaulo
Cc: freebsd-toolchain
___
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
rpaulo added a subscriber: rpaulo.
rpaulo added a comment.
This looks odd. Why are we relying on magic numbers instead of constants/enums
like before?
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1428
To: emaste
Cc: rpaulo, freebsd-toolchain
___
rpaulo added a comment.
! In D1428#5, @emaste wrote:
! In D1428#3, @rpaulo wrote:
This looks odd. Why are we relying on magic numbers instead of
constants/enums like before?
Some of the constants in the previous version are Linux-specific, and don't
exist in our ELF headers.
We could
= 0x3ffb+63; printf(%x\n, i);
i = 0x3ffc+63; printf(%x\n, i);
i = 0x3ffd+63; printf(%x\n, i);
i = 0x3ffe+63; printf(%x\n, i);
i = 0x3fff+63; printf(%x\n, i);
return 0;
}
Looks like it. Please file a bug report with LLVM.
--
Rui Paulo
On Sep 21, 2014, at 18:38, Rui Paulo rpa...@me.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 2014, at 18:19, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
#include stdio.h
#include stdint.h
int
main(void)
{
uint16_t i;
i = 0x3ff0+63; printf(%x\n, i);
i = 0x3ff1+63; printf(%x\n, i
. Given the push to keep the tree
mostly BSD licenced, I would say the former.
--
Rui Paulo
___
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-toolchain
the variable type to become
signed. One possible security vulnerability was avoided because that developer
checked for negative values.
I'm against turning this off by default, but it should not cause an error.
Regards,
--
Rui Paulo
___
freebsd-toolchain
On Nov 6, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
The only argument against this tautological check that I agree with is when
the code is explicitly trying to be safe. If the developer checks for i
0 when indexing an array he/she is trying to guard
12 matches
Mail list logo
