On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Dave Korn wrote:
Is that your idea of an apology? Regardless of topicality there's no
reasonable reading of Ian's words as a flame, they were entirely polite
and well-measured, and you should withdraw your baseless accusation and
say sorry rather than trying to rationalis
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:24:35PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 03 January 2007 19:08, Adam Sulmicki wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> >> I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
> >
> >> So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calli
On 03 January 2007 19:08, Adam Sulmicki wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
>
>> So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calling _mcount.
>
> It just that it is my impression that gcc list is more
>
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calling _mcount.
It just that it is my impression that gcc list is more
appropriate for gcc bugs than gcc-help.
I also did my bes
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Trivia time: what is the longest delay between a bug being committed
> to gcc before someone notices and a fix being committed? This one is
> eleven years and eight months. I wonder if we have a record.
As it happens, I can beat that. I've found a bug
H. J. Lu writes:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 10:18:36AM -0800, Seongbae Park wrote:
> > >In fact, by default, gcc for the i386 targets will call _mcount. gcc
> > >for i386 GNU/Linux targets was changed to call mcount instead of
> > >_mcount with this patch:
> > >
> > >Thu Mar 30 06:20:36 1995
"Seongbae Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I remember someone wanting to provide his own mcount().
> Presumably, mcount() is weak in libc to cover such a use case ?
Yes, mcount() is weak in libc. But it seems to me that you can
provide your own mcount even if it has to be named _mcount, since
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 10:18:36AM -0800, Seongbae Park wrote:
> >In fact, by default, gcc for the i386 targets will call _mcount. gcc
> >for i386 GNU/Linux targets was changed to call mcount instead of
> >_mcount with this patch:
> >
> >Thu Mar 30 06:20:36 1995 H.J. Lu ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> >
On 03 Jan 2007 10:07:57 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Sulmicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In spirit making OSS better, I took the extra effor to report
> findings back to both lists. In reward I got flamed on both list.
You got flamed on the gcc list? I
Adam Sulmicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In spirit making OSS better, I took the extra effor to report
> findings back to both lists. In reward I got flamed on both list.
You got flamed on the gcc list? I don't see any flames there. All I
told you was to use the gcc-help mailing
Hello folks,
This is my last post on the subject of mcount.
I have spent a quite bit of time on this to find out
that the results of myserious crashes is the mcount variable.
(with help from Ian Lance Taylor).
I have reported the issue to both gcc and mp
11 matches
Mail list logo
