> On Jul 15, 2015, at 05:17 , Pavel Pisa wrote:
>
>
> void *calloc(size_t nmemb, size_t size) \
>__attribute__ ((optimize("no-builtin")));
Oh-oh, now this mailing list is recursing! Check Joel’s earlier post.
Peter
-
Peter Dufault
HD Associates, Inc. Software and Sy
Hello Chris and others,
On Wednesday 15 of July 2015 09:48:34 Chris Johns wrote:
> On 15/07/2015 4:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > I didn't file a PR, only asked on the mailing list. My impression is
> > that this is not a bug, but a feature that must be disabled by C library
> > developers.
>
>
On 15/07/2015 4:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> I didn't file a PR, only asked on the mailing list. My impression is
> that this is not a bug, but a feature that must be disabled by C library
> developers.
A compiler that optimises to a infinite recursive loop for code that is
ok and not pushin
On 15/07/15 04:17, Chris Johns wrote:
On 15/07/2015 8:15 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Jul 13, 2015, at 20:01 , Chris Johns wrote:
On 14/07/2015 4:20 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 7/13/2015 1:06 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Yes, this option sounded like the right way to fix it, but...
https://
On 15/07/2015 8:15 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 20:01 , Chris Johns wrote:
>>
>> On 14/07/2015 4:20 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/13/2015 1:06 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Yes, this option sounded like the right way to fix it, but...
https://gcc.gnu.o
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 20:01 , Chris Johns wrote:
>
> On 14/07/2015 4:20 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/13/2015 1:06 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> Yes, this option sounded like the right way to fix it, but...
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-03/msg00093.html
>>> https://gc
On 14/07/2015 4:20 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On 7/13/2015 1:06 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> Yes, this option sounded like the right way to fix it, but...
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-03/msg00093.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-03/msg00094.html
>
> Ouch! That is a
On 7/13/2015 1:06 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Yes, this option sounded like the right way to fix it, but...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-03/msg00093.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-03/msg00094.html
Ouch! That is a big red flashing sign which says stay away!
And to Gedare's
Yes, this option sounded like the right way to fix it, but...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-03/msg00093.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-03/msg00094.html
- Joel Sherrill schrieb:
> This is possible to do inside the file itself using function
> attributes or pragmas. I am not
I'm fine with the build system hack to deal with this issue. Is there
a PR in gcc on this, and do we have a ticket to track it too?
Gedare
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> This is possible to do inside the file itself using function
> attributes or pragmas. I am not sure
This is possible to do inside the file itself using function
attributes or pragmas. I am not sure which method is best but
wanted to pass along so we could decide as a group.
optimize
The optimize attribute is used to specify that a function is to be compiled
with different optimization options
Disable an optimization which would lead to a recursive calloc() call in
calloc().
---
cpukit/libcsupport/Makefile.am | 8 ++--
cpukit/wrapup/Makefile.am | 1 +
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpukit/libcsupport/Makefile.am b/cpukit/libcsupport/Makefile.am
i
12 matches
Mail list logo
