On Jan 9 09:41, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27 18:06, Brian Ford wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry, but what I don't get from your reply is if the andl worked or
> > > > not.
> > >
> > > No; by itself, it
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 27 18:06, Brian Ford wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, but what I don't get from your reply is if the andl worked or
> > > not.
> >
> > No; by itself, it does not. Adding a "subl $12, %%esp" following it s
On Dec 27 18:06, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22 12:51, Brian Ford wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On second thought I'm a bit puzzled that the pthread stack isn't
> > > > correctly aligned as well. Ignoring
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 22 12:51, Brian Ford wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > On second thought I'm a bit puzzled that the pthread stack isn't
> > > correctly aligned as well. Ignoring the pthread_attr_setstack case
> > > which wasn't
On Dec 22 12:51, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On second thought I'm a bit puzzled that the pthread stack isn't
> > correctly aligned as well. Ignoring the pthread_attr_setstack case
> > which wasn't supported so far anyway, the OS stack set up by
> > Crea
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On second thought I'm a bit puzzled that the pthread stack isn't
> correctly aligned as well. Ignoring the pthread_attr_setstack case
> which wasn't supported so far anyway, the OS stack set up by
> CreateThread is 64K aligned. From that 64K aligned
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Btw., you are apparently not running the latest gcc-4. I just tried to
> compile this file (without my patch) on Cygwin and it works fine without
> any warning or error:
>
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 4.5.3
You are correct, although I just ran
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> The error message is kind of nonsense anyway. The expression in question
> is
>
> sizeof (cygheap_exec_info) + (nprocs * sizeof (children[0]))
>
> so it's just a `sizeof', not an actual usage of the member. Try this
> for now:
>
> Index: sigproc.c
On Dec 22 16:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 22 09:20, Brian Ford wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 21 15:25, Brian Ford wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Brian Ford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the fix Christopher, but I must be using the wrong c
On Dec 22 09:20, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21 15:25, Brian Ford wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Brian Ford wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the fix Christopher, but I must be using the wrong compiler or
> > > something. Here's my next issue:
> >
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 21 15:25, Brian Ford wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Brian Ford wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the fix Christopher, but I must be using the wrong compiler or
> > something. Here's my next issue:
> >
> > src/winsup/cygwin/child_info.h:
> > In static
On Dec 21 15:25, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Brian Ford wrote:
>
> > Still trying, but getting the following warning turned into an error by
> > -Werror which looks like it might be valid?
> >
> > cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors
> > src/winsup/cygwin/fhandler.cc:
> > In memb
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Brian Ford wrote:
> Still trying, but getting the following warning turned into an error by
> -Werror which looks like it might be valid?
>
> cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors
> src/winsup/cygwin/fhandler.cc:
> In member function fhandler_base_overlapped::wait_return
>
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Brian Ford wrote:
> I'm trying to test now, but I haven't built cygwin in years so I'm still
> working to get things set up.
Still trying, but getting the following warning turned into an error by
-Werror which looks like it might be valid?
cc1plus: warnings being treated as
On Dec 21 10:22, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21 15:20, Dave Korn wrote:
> > > GCC assumes that the stack starts off 16-aligned when the OS hands over
> > > to
> > > the exe's entrypoint, and then makes sure it stays that way by always
> > > rou
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 21 15:20, Dave Korn wrote:
> > GCC assumes that the stack starts off 16-aligned when the OS hands over to
> > the exe's entrypoint, and then makes sure it stays that way by always
> > rounding
> > stack frame sizes up to the nearest multiple
I'm sorry. I should have learned by now not to post at the last minute
before leaving for the day. I always make mistakes and leave out
important information. Thanks for considering my problem in spite of
these oversights. More below...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 20
On Dec 21 15:20, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 21/12/2011 09:42, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > But OTOH I have to admit that I don't see how this alignment business
> > worked at all. Aligning the stack to 16 byte in mainCRTStartup doesn't
> > guarantee that the stack is still 16 byte aligned in main().
On 21/12/2011 09:42, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> But OTOH I have to admit that I don't see how this alignment business
> worked at all. Aligning the stack to 16 byte in mainCRTStartup doesn't
> guarantee that the stack is still 16 byte aligned in main(). If that
> worked so far, it seems like a mi
On Dec 21 10:42, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 20 17:45, Brian Ford wrote:
> > I'm just headed home from work right now, but I thought I would let you
> > know of a regression from 1.7.9. It appears the effect of this patch:
> >
> > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2004-q2/msg00124.html
> >
On Dec 20 17:45, Brian Ford wrote:
> I'm just headed home from work right now, but I thought I would let you
> know of a regression from 1.7.9. It appears the effect of this patch:
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2004-q2/msg00124.html
>
> is no longer working in the current snapshot. I'
I'm just headed home from work right now, but I thought I would let you
know of a regression from 1.7.9. It appears the effect of this patch:
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2004-q2/msg00124.html
is no longer working in the current snapshot. I'll try to narrow it down
to which change caused
22 matches
Mail list logo
