On 31 December 2014 at 13:29, David Abdurachmanov
david.abdurachma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 30, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
If we have 64-bit kernel and 64-bit application is executed sys_getresuid is
used for getresuid syscall, otherwise if 32-bit application is executed --
On Dec 30, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
If we have 64-bit kernel and 64-bit application is executed sys_getresuid is
used for getresuid syscall, otherwise if 32-bit application is executed --
sys_getresuid16 is used. Thus 64-bit application will never call
sys_getresuid16
On Dec 29, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:36:42PM +0100, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels
=3.15,
3.16 and above are fine.
__kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsigned int to
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Abdurachmanov
david.abdurachma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 29, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:36:42PM +0100, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels
=3.15,
Hi,
I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels =3.15,
3.16 and above are fine.
__kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsigned int to unsigned
short. =3.15 kernel will trigger static asserts in libsanitizer while
compiling GCC.
I created PR:
Hi,
I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels =3.15,
3.16 and above are fine.
__kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsigned int to unsigned
short. =3.15 kernel will trigger static asserts in libsanitizer while
compiling GCC.
I created PR:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:36:42PM +0100, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
I believe this is breaking bootstrap on aarch64-linux-gnu with kernels =3.15,
3.16 and above are fine.
__kernel_old_{gid,uid}_t were changed in 3.16 from unsigned int to unsigned
short. =3.15 kernel will trigger static
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer make -j 50
make
On 13 November 2014 21:44, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Hello!
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer make -j 50
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} asan.exp' \
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer make -j 50
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:11:16PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
The missing definition in system's /usr/include/linux/types.h is protected
with:
typedef __u16 __bitwise __le16;
typedef __u16 __bitwise __be16;
typedef __u32 __bitwise __le32;
typedef __u32 __bitwise __be32;
#if
On 14 November 2014 11:38, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote:
On 13 November 2014 21:44, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin
Let's continue the discussion there, we can do another merge quickly
or do a cherry pick to GCC once we have a solution.
So far I don't see one. (other than not supporting the old kernels, of course)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Christophe Lyon
christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote:
On 13
I am not sure I understand the problem,
but whatever the problem is I am against using -std=gnu++ as this will
be a different flag combination from what we have upstream.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's continue the discussion
+eugenis (what kind of testing on ARM are we doing upstream?)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Christophe Lyon
christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote:
On 14 November 2014 11:38, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote:
On 13 November 2014 21:44, Konstantin Serebryany
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer make -j 50
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
Konstantin,
Applying the libsanitizer-221802.patch merge to r217456 with
the proposed patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534#c50, produces the
following new regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin14 for asan.exp at
-m32/-m64...
FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/global-overflow-1.c
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:35:48PM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer make -j 50
make -j
Hi,
Here is one more merge of libsanitizer (last one was in Sept).
Tested on x86_64 Ubuntu 14.04 like this:
rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer make -j 50
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} asan.exp' \
make -j 40 -C gcc check-g{cc,++}
20 matches
Mail list logo
