https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
--- Comment #2 from Pekka Seppänen ---
Hi Nick,
My apologies for a late response; The patch appears to work just fine as
expected.
However, it just occured to me that IEEE Std 1003.1 (2016 edition), i.e. the
POSIX specs, state that ``The st_
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23162
--- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=9bc935ef3380a2d471b9447e2bf8e61297654e2f
commit 9bc935ef3380a2d471b9447e2bf8e612
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23162
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23169
--- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=4ec0995016801cc5d5cf13baf6e10163861e6852
commit 4ec0995016801cc5d5cf13baf6e10163
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23169
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Pekka,
> so I guess the
> attached patch shouldn't be applied but one that fails only if the st_dev is
> the same, too
Can you confirm that MingW always returns 0 for the st_dev field as well ?
(I assu
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
--- Comment #4 from Pekka Seppänen ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3)
> Hi Pekka,
>
> Can you confirm that MingW always returns 0 for the st_dev field as well ?
> (I assume that it does, but I would like to make sure). If so then
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Pekka,
> No, MinGW populates the st_dev field with some apparently non-random value
In which case I will go with the original patch. I know that technically
a valid file might have an inode of 0, but
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
--- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=c3533c4c7c5db84b27e4dc8994a3c3a893077c03
commit c3533c4c7c5db84b27e4dc8994a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #8)
> On XFS, inode 0 can be used for regular files created by applications. Only
> newer versions have code in them to avoid inode 0. Some old applications
> hav
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23153
--- Comment #10 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #9)
> My assumption is that even if inode 0 is valid for the filesystem it is
> extremely unlikely that this value will just happen to be used for an
> assembler in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22662
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
14 matches
Mail list logo
