Understood. Thank you for the explanations.
I'll just plan to apply the patches locally as well.
Regards,
Cory
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:18 AM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> > To add a bit more context for Cory.
> >
> > Generally backports are limited to fixin
were:
r260216: Introduce gcc_qsort
r260222: gcc_qsort: avoid oversized memcpy temporaries
r262092: gcc_qsort: avoid overlapping memcpy (PR 86311)
r264065: qsort_chk: call from gcc_qsort instead of wrapping it
[0]: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg00479.html
Regards,
Cory Fields
atic and -pie and pass along only
-static-pie? Or forward them all along, and fix the specs which look
for static before static-pie ?
Regards,
Cory
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>>>> Hi list
>>>>
>>>> I
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> Hi list
>>
>> I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape
>> for 8.0.0. Nice work :)
>>
>> However, the fact
Hi list
I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape
for 8.0.0. Nice work :)
However, the fact that "gcc -static -pie" and "gcc -static-pie"
produce different results is very unexpected. I understand the case
for the new link-type, but merging the options when possible w
Yes, this is the issue that I ran into.
I took the check further by asserting that if cmp(A, B) == 0,
memcmp(A, B) == 0 as well. But that''s tricky because the structure
may contain data that differs from A to B, but ultimately isn't used
after the sort. So it leads to a bunch of false-ish-positiv
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/12/2018 11:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> Quick disclaimer: I'm 100% new to GCC code and the dev process, so
>> there are bound to be some faulty assumptions below.
>>
>> I recently worked on a build of gcc,
erally, many of these unstable sorts remain, and fixing them
up individually seems futile. Before working on this further, I'm
wondering if it makes sense to pull a qsort into libiberty and poison
the libc function. That way if unstable sorts do sneak in, at least
they would be consistently unsta
