On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 07:34:22PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
They expand into the same code, but using the ELF_xxx()/ElfW() macros
makes it much easier to spot similarities between code bases.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
Acked-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 07:33:50PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 19:31:16 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 10:10:19 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Test clean can be invoked with -j to exploits parallelism.
why don't you use `make -j` then ? i don't think
When built without NPTL support (or for a sparc target), the system()
function doesn't conform to its specification. Namely, it resets the
SIGCHLD handler to its default instead of blocking the signal, which
may result in lost signals if a custom handler was installed.
Replace this by appropriate
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 07:34:22PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
They expand into the same code, but using the ELF_xxx()/ElfW() macros
makes it much easier to spot similarities between code bases.
It would of course be much simpler to use size_t, uint32_t, etc. as
appropriate. All the types in
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:46:33PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
When built without NPTL support (or for a sparc target), the system()
function doesn't conform to its specification. Namely, it resets the
SIGCHLD handler to its default instead of blocking the signal, which
may result in lost
On Sunday 15 January 2012 06:40:13 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 07:33:50PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 19:31:16 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 10:10:19 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Test clean can be invoked with -j to
On Sunday 15 January 2012 10:02:07 Rich Felker wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 07:34:22PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
They expand into the same code, but using the ELF_xxx()/ElfW() macros
makes it much easier to spot similarities between code bases.
It would of course be much simpler to
As suggested by Bernhard, there is no point in evaluating the compiler's
flag availability when cleaning, so skip things in that case. If there
are variables that change targets based on the flags, then things are
already broken and need fixing independently.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 15 January 2012 13:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote:
As suggested by Bernhard, there is no point in evaluating the compiler's
flag availability when cleaning, so skip things in that case. If there
are variables that change targets based on the flags, then things are
already broken and
On Sunday 15 January 2012 13:23:54 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 15 January 2012 13:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote:
As suggested by Bernhard, there is no point in evaluating the compiler's
flag availability when cleaning, so skip things in that case. If there
are variables that change
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
Your report is wrong. system is REQUIRED by POSIX to change the signal
disposition for SIGCHLD, not just to block the signal. It should
change it to SIG_IGN, not SIG_DFL, but for practical purposes these
are the same or similar.
I
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:36:55PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
I agree the use of signal() immediately disturbed me, but I didn't read
its implementation. Maybe it does the job. In any case, we could use the
occasion to fix that as well and replace signal() with sigaction() in
the same patch.
On Sunday 15 January 2012 14:36:55 Richard Braun wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
Your report is wrong. system is REQUIRED by POSIX to change the signal
disposition for SIGCHLD, not just to block the signal. It should
change it to SIG_IGN, not SIG_DFL, but
On Sunday 15 January 2012 14:50:24 Richard Braun wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:36:55PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
I agree the use of signal() immediately disturbed me, but I didn't read
its implementation. Maybe it does the job. In any case, we could use the
occasion to fix that as
On 15/01/2012 1.31, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 10:10:19 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Test clean can be invoked with -j to exploits parallelism.
why don't you use `make -j` then ? i don't think -j munging
belongs in any Makefile here.
I do already use, but this one
On 15/01/2012 1.33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 19:31:16 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 10:10:19 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Test clean can be invoked with -j to exploits parallelism.
why don't you use `make -j` then ? i don't think -j munging
belongs
On 15/01/2012 19.37, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 15 January 2012 13:23:54 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 15 January 2012 13:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote:
As suggested by Bernhard, there is no point in evaluating the
compiler's flag availability when cleaning, so skip things in
that case.
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote:
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Khem Raj
19 matches
Mail list logo
