Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2011/10/24 Bob Breuer :
>> Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> For trunk-version I have a tentative patch for this issue. On 4.6.x
>>> and older branches this doesn't work, as here we can't differenciate
>>> that easy between ms- and sysv-abi.
>>>
>>> But could somebody give this p
2011/10/24 Bob Breuer :
> Kai Tietz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> For trunk-version I have a tentative patch for this issue. On 4.6.x
>> and older branches this doesn't work, as here we can't differenciate
>> that easy between ms- and sysv-abi.
>>
>> But could somebody give this patch a try?
>>
>> Regards,
Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For trunk-version I have a tentative patch for this issue. On 4.6.x
> and older branches this doesn't work, as here we can't differenciate
> that easy between ms- and sysv-abi.
>
> But could somebody give this patch a try?
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
> ChangeLog
>
>
On 2011-10-20 23:34, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For trunk-version I have a tentative patch for this issue. On 4.6.x
> and older branches this doesn't work, as here we can't differenciate
> that easy between ms- and sysv-abi.
>
> But could somebody give this patch a try?
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
>
2011/10/22 xunxun :
> 于 2011/10/22 13:13, xunxun 写道:
>>
>> Hi, all
>>
>> It seems that gcc's auto-omit-frame-pointer has other problems.
>>
>> The example is from mingw bug tracker:
>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3426555&group_id=2435&atid=102435
>>
>> g++ -O3 main.cpp
于 2011/10/22 13:13, xunxun 写道:
Hi, all
It seems that gcc's auto-omit-frame-pointer has other problems.
The example is from mingw bug tracker:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3426555&group_id=2435&atid=102435
g++ -O3 main.cpp running will crash.
g++ -O2 m
Hi, all
It seems that gcc's auto-omit-frame-pointer has other problems.
The example is from mingw bug tracker:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3426555&group_id=2435&atid=102435
g++ -O3 main.cpp running will crash.
g++ -O2 main.cpp running no crash.
On 2011-10-21 AM 12:34, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi,
For trunk-version I have a tentative patch for this issue. On 4.6.x
and older branches this doesn't work, as here we can't differenciate
that easy between ms- and sysv-abi.
But could somebody give this patch a try?
Regards,
Kai
ChangeLog
Hi,
For trunk-version I have a tentative patch for this issue. On 4.6.x
and older branches this doesn't work, as here we can't differenciate
that easy between ms- and sysv-abi.
But could somebody give this patch a try?
Regards,
Kai
ChangeLog
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_frame_pointer_re
2011/10/20 xunxun :
> Hi, all
>
> I think this issue causes the gdb crash on XP.
> You can see the thread: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-10/msg00056.html
>
> My many friends and I can reproduce this crash issue, but no problem on Win7.
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
>>
On 2011-10-20 AM 6:05, Bob Breuer wrote:
We probably have a difference in build or run environment. I've
double-checked with another machine and can get the same crash in
longjmp when running the test executable on both WinXP and Win2k, but
not on Win7. So it looks like Microsoft may have chan
Hi, all
I think this issue causes the gdb crash on XP.
You can see the thread: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-10/msg00056.html
My many friends and I can reproduce this crash issue, but no problem on Win7.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
> Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2011/10/18 Bob
On 10/19/2011 02:05 PM, Bob Breuer wrote:
> Is it possible to force a
> stackframe by just adding a suitable attribute to either the setjmp
> function prototype, or the function which calls setjmp?
The only thing I can think of that'll be portable to a large number
of versions of GCC is
{
i
Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2011/10/18 Bob Breuer :
>> Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2011/10/17 Bob Breuer :
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 07:09 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
>> Google finds a mention of longjmp failing with -fomit-frame-pointer:
>> http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2005-02/msg001
2011/10/18 Bob Breuer :
> Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2011/10/17 Bob Breuer :
>>> Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/17/2011 07:09 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
> I don't think this is a free/g_free issue. If I use the following
> patch, then I at least get the openbios messages:
>
> diff --git a
Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2011/10/17 Bob Breuer :
>> Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2011 07:09 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
I don't think this is a free/g_free issue. If I use the following
patch, then I at least get the openbios messages:
diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
ind
2011/10/17 Bob Breuer :
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/17/2011 07:09 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
>>> I don't think this is a free/g_free issue. If I use the following
>>> patch, then I at least get the openbios messages:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
>>> index a9fa608..dfbd6ea 100644
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 07:09 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
>> I don't think this is a free/g_free issue. If I use the following
>> patch, then I at least get the openbios messages:
>>
>> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
>> index a9fa608..dfbd6ea 100644
>> --- a/cpu-exec.c
>> +++ b/cp
On 10/17/2011 12:14 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> IIRC buggy versions of alloca() could also fail without a frame pointer.
(1) GCC always uses a frame pointer for alloca,
(2) Unless you do -fno-builtin-alloca, we always implement it inline.
r~
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 07:09 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
>> I don't think this is a free/g_free issue. If I use the following
>> patch, then I at least get the openbios messages:
>>
>> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
>> index a9fa608..dfbd6ea 1006
On 10/17/2011 07:09 AM, Bob Breuer wrote:
> I don't think this is a free/g_free issue. If I use the following
> patch, then I at least get the openbios messages:
>
> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
> index a9fa608..dfbd6ea 100644
> --- a/cpu-exec.c
> +++ b/cpu-exec.c
> @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ st
21 matches
Mail list logo
