On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:31:56 +0100
Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Sean McGovern wrote:
> >
> > I discovered this while doing a full valgrind FATE run on a POWER7
> > machine -- among others, fate-noproxy failed.
> >
> > The
Hi Rémi,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le tiistaina 13. helmikuuta 2018, 18.16.55 EET Sean McGovern a écrit :
>> I discovered this while doing a full valgrind FATE run on a POWER7
>> machine -- among others, fate-noproxy failed.
>>
>> The result
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Sean McGovern wrote:
>
> I discovered this while doing a full valgrind FATE run on a POWER7
> machine -- among others, fate-noproxy failed.
>
> The result for the noproxy test in this case makes me believe it is
> using the aforementioned
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Sean McGovern wrote:
>
>> Using strcmp() with constant arrays in recent versions of GCC,
>> the compiler will "optimize" the calls to use memcmp() instead.
>>
>> This can be problematic as
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Sean McGovern wrote:
Using strcmp() with constant arrays in recent versions of GCC,
the compiler will "optimize" the calls to use memcmp() instead.
This can be problematic as some implementations of memcmp() are written
to compare full words at a time which can cause an
On 13/02/2018 06:18, Sean McGovern wrote:
Using strcmp() with constant arrays in recent versions of GCC,
the compiler will "optimize" the calls to use memcmp() instead.
This can be problematic as some implementations of memcmp() are written
to compare full words at a time which can cause an
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:35:36PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 2/11/2018 4:09 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > --- a/configure
> > +++ b/configure
> > @@ -1097,11 +1097,9 @@ check_struct(){
> > check_builtin(){
> > log check_builtin "$@"
> > name=$1
> > -headers=$2
> > -