Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:28 PM
> To: 朱庆; Gang Yu
> Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for missing .setion .bss in
> cgemit
>
> Gang,
> The code tells me that SL should have gone thr
Is the struct size 0 for the SL case too.
Murthy
-Original Message-
From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:28 PM
To: 朱庆; Gang Yu
Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for missing .setion .bss in cgemit
ok. So this is something introduced no in the original code.
Pls check in. However, your print string does not need an extra '\n'
in front and should not.
Sun
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, 朱庆 wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> Can gatekeeper help review this fix?
>
> Case a.c:
> struct line { char a[0];};
It should be a x86 special bug.
In SL, when controls goes to cgemit.cxx:8099
SL ignores the TARG_X86 defines and goes to Change_Section_Origin, so
cur_section be set to bss (base == cur_section) and also mips related
targets print the section attributes when section changes.
while in x86 case,
Gang,
The code tells me that SL should have gone through the same logic. Can
you double check why your's work?
Sun
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, 朱庆 wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> Can gatekeeper help review this fix?
>
> Case a.c:
> struct line { char a[0];};
> static struct line line3;
> static struct l
zqing,
can you send the source file?
Thx!
Sun
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Gang Yu wrote:
> In SL, as for the proposed case, control does not goes to the suggested
> patch.
>
> Gang
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Sun Chan wrote:
>>
>> thx Gang!
>> Can you add the proposed changes to
In SL, as for the proposed case, control does not goes to the suggested
patch.
Gang
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Sun Chan wrote:
> thx Gang!
> Can you add the proposed changes to your vers...@sl and see if it
> affects the code for you?
> Sun
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Gang Yu
thx Gang!
Can you add the proposed changes to your vers...@sl and see if it
affects the code for you?
Sun
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Gang Yu wrote:
> It looks ok in SL.
>
> .section .bss
> .org 0x0
> .align 0
> .type line3, @object
> .size line3,
It looks ok in SL.
.section .bss
.org 0x0
.align 0
.type line3, @object
.size line3, 1
line3: # 0x0
.skip 1
.org 0x1
.align 0
.type line4, @object
.size line4, 1
line4: # 0x1
Gang
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 a
ssage-
From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 10:27 AM
To: Jian-Xin Lai
Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for missing .setion .bss in cgemit
I understand that. I am just baffled that such obvious bug e
I understand that. I am just baffled that such obvious bug exists. And
I am conjecturing this is due to some other changes that happened.
That is why I am asking for a larger segment of code to look at
Sun
2010/11/19 Jian-Xin Lai :
> Yes, line3 and line 4 should be in .saa, not .rodata.
>
> 2010/1
Yes, line3 and line 4 should be in .saa, not .rodata.
2010/11/18 Sun Chan
> this problem is too simple to be wrong, makes me think something
> really bad has happened. Can someone try the case for a different
> target (such as IA64, SL, Mips ...?)
> I'd like to know why this fails with a broader
this problem is too simple to be wrong, makes me think something
really bad has happened. Can someone try the case for a different
target (such as IA64, SL, Mips ...?)
I'd like to know why this fails with a broader code fragment for review.
Mike,
What do you think?
Sun
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:
13 matches
Mail list logo
