On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Modified Files:
src/common/lib/libc/string: bcopy.c
Log Message:
Using bcopy/memcpy with NULL arguments is valid as long as the size is
also 0.
No, it's undefined behaviour. C99 section 7.21.1:
Unless explicitly stated otherwise in
Tetsuya Isaki writes:
Module Name: src
Committed By: isaki
Date: Mon Apr 14 14:24:27 UTC 2014
Modified Files:
src/sys/arch/x68k/stand/boot_ustar: Makefile
Log Message:
Remove -mc68000 asm option for GCC4.8 (or new binutils?).
With this option, new gcc complains that
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:51:29PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
hmmm this option is now called -march=68000. i don't think any
x68k are 68000 are they? all 020/030/040? perhaps using
-mcpu=m68020 here might be best? i would test some and see if
size or speed matters any.
It doesn't really
Martin Husemann writes:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:51:29PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
hmmm this option is now called -march=68000. i don't think any
x68k are 68000 are they? all 020/030/040? perhaps using
-mcpu=m68020 here might be best? i would test some and see if
size or speed
Hello,
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@netbsd.org wrote:
|Module Name: src
|Committed By: joerg
|Date: Mon Apr 14 18:18:58 UTC 2014
|
|Modified Files:
| src/common/lib/libc/string: bcopy.c
|
|Log Message:
|Using bcopy/memcpy with NULL arguments is valid as long as the size is
|also 0.
mrg@ wrote:
Martin Husemann writes:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:51:29PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
hmmm this option is now called -march=68000.
I don't think this is correct.
i don't think any
x68k are 68000 are they? all 020/030/040? perhaps using
-mcpu=m68020 here might be
P.S.: i wasn't subscribed to this list (until hopefully now),
so i haven't seen that Alan Barrett already commented.
But now that i read it, ISO C 2011 states the same (7.24.1).
--steffen
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 08:06:57AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Modified Files:
src/common/lib/libc/string: bcopy.c
Log Message:
Using bcopy/memcpy with NULL arguments is valid as long as the size is
also 0.
No, it's undefined behaviour.
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:50:45 +
From: Juergen Hannken-Illjes hann...@netbsd.org
Fix a deadlock where one thread exits, enters fstrans_lwp_dtor()
and wants fstrans_lock. This thread holds the proc_lock.
This sounds fishy. lwp_exit does not hold proc_lock while calling
On 15 Apr, 2014, at 05:14 , Izumi Tsutsui tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp wrote:
- NetBSD/x68k supports only X680x0 machines with MC68030 and higher
processors.
- Normal X68000 machines (i.e. all X680x0 except X68030) have MC68000,
so 030 accelerators are required for the X68000 models, i.e.
This should be pulled up to netbsd-6
On Apr 12, 2014, at 05:24, Greg Troxel g...@netbsd.org wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: gdt
Date: Sat Apr 12 12:24:50 UTC 2014
Modified Files:
src/sys/netinet: if_arp.c
Log Message:
revarprequest: Avoid leaking mbuf.
In
Erik Fair f...@netbsd.org writes:
On Apr 12, 2014, at 05:24, Greg Troxel g...@netbsd.org wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By:gdt
Date:Sat Apr 12 12:24:50 UTC 2014
Modified Files:
src/sys/netinet: if_arp.c
Log Message:
revarprequest: Avoid leaking mbuf.
12 matches
Mail list logo
