On 5/27/19 12:02 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> Yes, we need the patch from John to solve reported gcc-9 build issue
>> entirely. From the latest update he will do soon. :)
>>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2019-05/msg00099.html
>
> John, ping? Could you send us the patch soon? IMO
On 5/27/19 12:02 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2019-05/msg00099.html
>
> John, ping? Could you send us the patch soon? IMO this is the last thing
> which blocks the release.
Just a second, I will send the patch today. Sorry for the delay.
Adrian
--
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:40:28PM +0800, Michael Chang wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 05:35:34PM +0100, Neil MacLeod wrote:
> > > Thanks! I allowed myself to add your Tested-by. I hope this is not a
> > > problem for you
> >
> > Not at all!
> >
> > > This and other fixes posted earlier are now
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 05:35:34PM +0100, Neil MacLeod wrote:
> > Thanks! I allowed myself to add your Tested-by. I hope this is not a
> > problem for you
>
> Not at all!
>
> > This and other fixes posted earlier are now in the tree.
>
> Latest grub HEAD
> Thanks! I allowed myself to add your Tested-by. I hope this is not a problem
> for you
Not at all!
> This and other fixes posted earlier are now in the tree.
Latest grub HEAD (53e70d30cf0d18e6c28bab0ab8d223a90d3e1b46) continues
to fail when building f2fs.c with gcc-9.1 due to a packed member
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 05:16:34PM +0100, Neil MacLeod wrote:
> Hi Daniel & Michael
>
> I've tested the new patch (in place of my attempt) and grub is
> building successfully so it looks good here!
Thanks! I allowed myself to add your Tested-by. I hope this is not
a problem for you.
Michael,
Hi Daniel & Michael
I've tested the new patch (in place of my attempt) and grub is
building successfully so it looks good here!
Many thanks!
Neil
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 13:26, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
> CC-ing n...@nmacleod.com
>
> Michael, thank you for posting the patch.
>
> Neil, does it solve
CC-ing n...@nmacleod.com
Michael, thank you for posting the patch.
Neil, does it solve your problem?
Daniel
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 05:00:19PM +0800, Michael Chang wrote:
> The function grub_get_node_path could return uninitialized offset with
> level == 0 if the block is greater than
The function grub_get_node_path could return uninitialized offset with
level == 0 if the block is greater than direct_index + 2*direct_blks +
2*indirect_blks + dindirect_blks. The uninitialized offset is then used
by function grub_f2fs_get_block because level == 0 is valid and
meaningful return to
