Hi Jakub,
Thank you and I committed the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=220083.
regards,
Venkat.
On 24 January 2015 at 20:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 08:09:24PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> Index: libsanitizer/ChangeLog
>> ===
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 08:09:24PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
> Index: libsanitizer/ChangeLog
> ===
> --- libsanitizer/ChangeLog(revision 220079)
> +++ libsanitizer/ChangeLog(working copy)
> @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
> 2015-01-
Hi Jakub,
On 24 January 2015 at 14:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 01:23:22PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> I reused libgcc's "host_address" test and the patch passed normal
>> bootstrap in x86_64.
>>
>> Can you please check if this is fine ?
>
> Can't you just use what
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 01:23:22PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
> I reused libgcc's "host_address" test and the patch passed normal
> bootstrap in x86_64.
>
> Can you please check if this is fine ?
Can't you just use what configure.tgt already uses?
x86_64-*-linux* | i?86-*-linux*)
Hi Rainer,
Please find the corrected patch attached. I removed some eval
statements I added for debugging.
regards,
Venkat,
On 24 January 2015 at 13:23, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I reused libgcc's "host_address" test and the patch passed normal
> bootstrap in x86_64.
>
> Can
Hi Rainer,
I reused libgcc's "host_address" test and the patch passed normal
bootstrap in x86_64.
Can you please check if this is fine ?
regards,
Venkat.
On 24 January 2015 at 12:53, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Venkat,
>
>> Yes thanks I will work on fixing this. Let me know if I need to revert
>>
Hi Venkat,
> Yes thanks I will work on fixing this. Let me know if I need to revert
> the patch meanwhile.
I don't think this is urgent enough to justify reversion.
Thanks.
Rainer
--
-
Rainer Orth, Center for B
Hi Rainer,
Yes thanks I will work on fixing this. Let me know if I need to revert
the patch meanwhile.
regards,
Venkat.
On 24 January 2015 at 02:23, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Venkat,
>
>> I committed the patch with the change log corrections you said.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=re
Hi Venkat,
> I committed the patch with the change log corrections you said.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=220034
unfortunately, it broke bootstrap for an i686-unknown-linux-gnu
--enable-targets=all build: the 64-bit libtsan.so fails to link:
.libs/tsan_interface_ato
Hi Jakub,
I committed the patch with the change log corrections you said.
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=220034
regards,
Venkat.
On 23 January 2015 at 02:14, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:16:53PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:16:53PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
> >> ping.
> >>
> >> Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
> >
> > W
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:16:53PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
> >> ping.
> >>
> >> Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
> >
> > W
Hi Jakub,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes there is no functional change. I got some comments in PR63850
about pushing a patch since is GCC only change.
Ok I will wait for LLVM merge of TSAN which needs this patch.
regards,
Venkat.
On 22 January 2015 at 19:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> ping.
>>
>> Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
>
> Well, without a change from upstream to guard the HACKY_CALL and actual tsan
>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
> ping.
>
> Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
Well, without a change from upstream to guard the HACKY_CALL and actual tsan
port to non-x86_64 this patch doesn't solve anything.
ping.
Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
regards,
Venkat.
On 20 January 2015 at 18:51, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch changes make file and configure under libsanitizer, to
> separate out X86_64 specific file "tsan_rtl_amd64.S" from
Hi all,
This patch changes make file and configure under libsanitizer, to
separate out X86_64 specific file "tsan_rtl_amd64.S" from getting
build for targets other than X86_64.
Ok for trunk?
Please review.
regards,
Venkat,
ChangeLog
2015-01-19 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config
17 matches
Mail list logo