On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:33:08AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>I see. It seems the 3.4.x code is just assuming a bit too much when
>examining functions, whereas the 4.x implementation is a bit more careful.
AFAICT, the code was just plain wrong with gcc 3.4.4. However, I found a bug
report w
On Jun 12 11:22, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I'm wondering if we should do that or not. I'm not a gcc person, so I'm
> >not exactly the right one to make such a decision. It's just interesting
> >that the strict-aliasing problem Chris found, is no problem in gcc 4
> >anymo
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 11 18:53, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Otherwise, do you know by any chance, if there exists some fix for that
problem? The above kludge is almost a year old, so there's a chance
that somebody already found the fix.
Where we had a problem wa
On Jun 11 18:53, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Otherwise, do you know by any chance, if there exists some fix for that
> >problem? The above kludge is almost a year old, so there's a chance
> >that somebody already found the fix.
>
> Where we had a problem was with -fschedul
On Jun 11 16:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 02:33:32PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >I did a little more debugging on this and it seems like, in this case at
> >least, the problem is that the newlib code is wrong. Compiling it with
> >-Wstrict-aliasing revealed a pro
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 02:33:32PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I did a little more debugging on this and it seems like, in this case at
>least, the problem is that the newlib code is wrong. Compiling it with
>-Wstrict-aliasing revealed a problem. Correcting the strict aliasing problem
>seem
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 06:53:14PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>Gerrit, could you please follow up on this? It seems the simplest way is
>>to just switch off -funit-at-a-time for the -O2 optimization. This is the
>>patch we applied internally, if that's of any help for
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Gerrit, could you please follow up on this? It seems the simplest way is
to just switch off -funit-at-a-time for the -O2 optimization. This is the
patch we applied internally, if that's of any help for you:
Index: gcc/opts.c
=
On Jun 10 20:57, David Rothenberger wrote:
> rsync has started reported negative statistics with the 20050610
> snapshot and a DLL I built from CVS HEAD today using gcc 3.4.4 and the
> latest gcc-mingw release. Interestingly (to me, at least), it works
> correctly with CVS HEAD built today using
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:15:31PM -0500, "Patrick J. LoPresti" wrote:
> > Rodrigo de Salvo Braz writes:
> >
> > > The point would be to bring this to the attention of the people
> > > being negative. By seeing that not just one person feels
> like that,
> > > people may decide to stop and th
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:15:31PM -0500, "Patrick J. LoPresti" wrote:
> Rodrigo de Salvo Braz writes:
>
> > The point would be to bring this to the attention of the people
> > being negative. By seeing that not just one person feels like that,
> > people may decide to stop and think whether their
Rodrigo de Salvo Braz writes:
> The point would be to bring this to the attention of the people
> being negative. By seeing that not just one person feels like that,
> people may decide to stop and think whether their ways are
> constructive. Hopefully this would effect a change for the better.
U
> At 06:14 PM 1/4/2005, you wrote:
> >On Wednesday 05 January 2005 00:26, Isaac Foraker wrote:
> >
> >> I am, however, greatly disappointed at how negatively
> certain members
> >> of
> >
> >Totally agree. "Negative" is the correct word. I never felt
> so much of
> >it (I'm talking about just c
At 09:03 PM 1/4/2005, you wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
>
>> Well, negative or positive, we cannot change how anyone responds to posts
>> on this list nor can we change how people interpret those responses. As
>> a result, I don't see much point in lots of "me too"s along this line
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
> Well, negative or positive, we cannot change how anyone responds to posts
> on this list nor can we change how people interpret those responses. As
> a result, I don't see much point in lots of "me too"s along this line,
The point would be to bring this to
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 06:14 PM 1/4/2005, you wrote:
> >On Wednesday 05 January 2005 00:26, Isaac Foraker wrote:
> >
> >> I am, however, greatly disappointed at how negatively certain members of
> >
> >Totally agree. "Negative" is the correct word. I never felt so much of it
>
At 06:14 PM 1/4/2005, you wrote:
>On Wednesday 05 January 2005 00:26, Isaac Foraker wrote:
>
>> I am, however, greatly disappointed at how negatively certain members of
>
>Totally agree. "Negative" is the correct word. I never felt so much of it (I'm
>talking about just certain members, of course)
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:24:04AM +0200, Daniel Lungu wrote:
>> -wrong-nil(!)-exit-status-
>> % nerr-cl.exe; echo $?
>> 0
>>
>> $? cannot distinguish exit(0) from exit(-2) ... this is
>> logical anarchy!
>
>:) Ah, but those aren't just two different values passed to exit, they are
>:)
> -wrong-nil(!)-exit-status-
> % nerr-cl.exe; echo $?
> 0
>
> $? cannot distinguish exit(0) from exit(-2) ... this is
> logical anarchy!
:) Ah, but those aren't just two different values passed to exit, they are
:) in fact two entirely different versions of the exit function: gcc links
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:23:41AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:25:09AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote:
>> >> > Feel like
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Daniel Lungu
> Sent: 08 July 2004 18:14
> Indeed, but same arithmetic should apply when exit status
> comes from a "cl
> compiled .exe". It is not the case when compiling nerr.c with cl:
>
> -wrong-nil(!)-exit-status-
> % ner
:) "The value of status may be 0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, [CX] or any
:) other value"
:) but what you shouldn't do is expect the exit status in the shell to be
:) anything other than the least-significant byte of the value you passed:
:) "though only the least significant 8 bits (that is, sta
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:25:09AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote:
> >> > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status
> >> > from a cl co
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:25:09AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote:
>> > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl
>> > compiled .exe
>>
>> The answer is "don't do that". Use posit
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote:
> > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl
> > compiled .exe
>
> The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from
> 0 to 255. See
> http://www.opengroup.org/o
On Jul 8 14:00, Daniel Lungu wrote:
> > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl
> > compiled .exe
>
> :) The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from
> :) 0 to 255. See
> :) http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.ht
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: 08 July 2004 11:09
> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote:
> > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit
> status from a cl
> > compiled .exe
>
> The answer is "don't do that". Use positive val
> Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl
> compiled .exe
:) The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from
:) 0 to 255. See
:) http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.html
I wouldn't do that. The problem is other did
On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote:
> Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl
> compiled .exe
The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from
0 to 255. See
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.html
Corinna
--
Cori
29 matches
Mail list logo
