On Jul 02 2025, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> I'm pretty new to tcl and didn't do extensive testing but for my few
> experiments it worked so far. I guess `string match` uses globbing so
> something like "* -f(no-)?stack-protector* *" doesn't work which is why
> I used two matches.
You ca
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 11:43:13AM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 06:33:12PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:47:53PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > > In the past years I have started to use more and more function body
>
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 06:33:12PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:47:53PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > In the past years I have started to use more and more function body
> > checks whenever gcc emits optimal code for a function. With that I
> > wanted to
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:47:53PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> In the past years I have started to use more and more function body
> checks whenever gcc emits optimal code for a function. With that I
> wanted to make sure that we do not regress like introducing unnecessary
> extend
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 02:50:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In Fedora/RHEL we usually test with
> make check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/'{,-fstack-protector-strong}'"
> because -fstack-protector-strong is used when building pretty much all the
> packages.
>
> In the
Hi!
In Fedora/RHEL we usually test with
make check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/'{,-fstack-protector-strong}'"
because -fstack-protector-strong is used when building pretty much all the
packages.
In the past Marek Polacek has committed tweaks to various tests to make
them PASS in such testin
