Jason Merrill wrote:
> The lengths do still need to be different on the two code paths,
> though. You added back the NULL for the normal case, but the '*' path
> still lacks it. I'll fix this.
Ah, ok, thanks.
Paolo.
On 10/30/2009 06:27 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thanks. So I went ahead and reapplied the patch with the +1 fixed, after
having double checked that the testsuites are now fine.
The lengths do still need to be different on the two code paths, though.
You added back the NULL for the normal case, b
Jason Merrill wrote:
> Yes, the +1 does seem to be needed, my mistake.
Thanks. So I went ahead and reapplied the patch with the +1 fixed, after
having double checked that the testsuites are now fine.
Paolo.
On 10/30/2009 09:20 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
where you replaced build_string (strlen (name) + 1, name) with
build_string (strlen (name), name). I don't know if this renders the
ABIs incompatible, but I doubt it -
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> where you replaced build_string (strlen (name) + 1, name) with
>> build_string (strlen (name), name). I don't know if this renders the
>> ABIs incompatible, but I doubt it - it would be nice to verify that indeed
>
Richard Guenther wrote:
> where you replaced build_string (strlen (name) + 1, name) with
> build_string (strlen (name), name). I don't know if this renders the
> ABIs incompatible, but I doubt it - it would be nice to verify that indeed
> just extra '\0's are now missing at the end.
>
To be cle
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Jerry Quinn wrote:
>> I've reverted the patch.
>>
> Thanks Jerry for your quick feedback.
I think it was just
static tree
-tinfo_name (tree type)
+tinfo_name (tree type, bool mark_private)
{
const char *name;
+ int length;
tree nam
Jerry Quinn wrote:
> I've reverted the patch.
>
Thanks Jerry for your quick feedback.
Paolo.
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 12:48 +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry if the issue is already well known, but it's so serious that I
> decided to post an heads up: today (not yesterday), the ABI is broken,
> the size of many symbols exported by libstdc++ changed, see eg:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.
Hi,
sorry if the issue is already well known, but it's so serious that I
decided to post an heads up: today (not yesterday), the ABI is broken,
the size of many symbols exported by libstdc++ changed, see eg:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-10/msg02895.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml
10 matches
Mail list logo
