On 2014.07.28 at 11:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> >
> > It shouldn't be too hard to implement a simple check for the bug in the
> > next release. Just compile the gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i38
On 2014.07.28 at 10:27 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > >
> > > Please note that the data produced by "-g -fvar-tracking" is consumed
> > > by tools like systemtap, pe
On 2014.07.26 at 15:55 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 09:35:57PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > But fortunately the workaround for the new inode.c bug is the same as
> > for the original bug: -fno-var-tracking-assignments.
> >
&g
On 2014.07.26 at 12:56 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> >
> > But fortunately the workaround for the new inode.c bug is the same as
> > for the original bug: -fno-var-tracking-assignments.
> >
> &g
On 2014.07.26 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > That's a bit worrisome. I haven't actually checked if the code
> > generation differs in significant ways yet..
>
> Nope. Just three instructions that got re-ordered from ABC to
5 matches
Mail list logo
