On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012/7/4 Ozkan Sezer :
>> On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2012/7/4 Ozkan Sezer :
On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012/7/4 Tristan Gingold :
>> Hi,
>>
>>> as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an
>>> updated
>>> version
2012/7/4 Ozkan Sezer :
> On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2012/7/4 Ozkan Sezer :
>>> On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
2012/7/4 Tristan Gingold :
> Hi,
>
>> as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
>> version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
>
>
On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012/7/4 Ozkan Sezer :
>> On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2012/7/4 Tristan Gingold :
Hi,
> as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
> version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
Sure. I was writing a mail about
2012/7/4 Ozkan Sezer :
> On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2012/7/4 Tristan Gingold :
>>> Hi,
>>>
as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
>>>
>>> Sure. I was writing a mail about that, but you were faster.
>>>
Do
On Jul 4, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2012/7/4 Tristan Gingold :
>>> Hi,
>>>
as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
>>>
>>> Sure. I was writing a mail about that, but
On 7/4/12, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012/7/4 Tristan Gingold :
>> Hi,
>>
>>> as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
>>> version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
>>
>> Sure. I was writing a mail about that, but you were faster.
>>
>>> Do you think we should use for older
2012/7/4 Tristan Gingold :
> Hi,
>
>> as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
>> version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
>
> Sure. I was writing a mail about that, but you were faster.
>
>> Do you think we should use for older gcc-versions - not having the
>> fixed
Hi,
> as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
> version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
Sure. I was writing a mail about that, but you were faster.
> Do you think we should use for older gcc-versions - not having the
> fixed frame-pointer builtin - still __mingw
Hello Tristan,
as you patch was applied to gcc's repository will you sent an updated
version of your patch for setjmp.h header?
Do you think we should use for older gcc-versions - not having the
fixed frame-pointer builtin - still __mingw_getsp instead?
Regards,
Kai
-
On Jun 18, 2012, at 2:31 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
[...]
>> I think I now know how to compute the establisher frame value. This is
>> simply what is advertised by Frame Reg and Frame Offset in UNWIND_INFO. The
>> patch is appended belo
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
>> 2012/6/8 Tristan Gingold :
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>>
Hello Tristan,
Thanks for working on this. The patch is ok. As JonY said, unified
d
On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012/6/8 Tristan Gingold :
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Tristan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for working on this. The patch is ok. As JonY said, unified
>>> diffs are more welcome ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/8 Tristan Gingold :
2012/6/8 Tristan Gingold :
>
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
>> Hello Tristan,
>>
>> Thanks for working on this. The patch is ok. As JonY said, unified
>> diffs are more welcome ;)
>>
>>
>> 2012/6/8 Tristan Gingold :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am currently working on porting our toolset to
On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello Tristan,
>
> Thanks for working on this. The patch is ok. As JonY said, unified
> diffs are more welcome ;)
>
>
> 2012/6/8 Tristan Gingold :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am currently working on porting our toolset to gcc 4.7 compiled to fully
>> suppor
On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:55 PM, JonY wrote:
> On 6/8/2012 18:27, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am currently working on porting our toolset to gcc 4.7 compiled to fully
>> support SEH, and I have compiled gdb. This gdb crashes frequently, and I
>> traced that to the use of setjmp/longjmp.
Hello Tristan,
Thanks for working on this. The patch is ok. As JonY said, unified
diffs are more welcome ;)
2012/6/8 Tristan Gingold :
> Hi,
>
> I am currently working on porting our toolset to gcc 4.7 compiled to fully
> support SEH, and I have compiled gdb. This gdb crashes frequently, and
On 6/8/2012 18:27, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently working on porting our toolset to gcc 4.7 compiled to fully
> support SEH, and I have compiled gdb. This gdb crashes frequently, and I
> traced that to the use of setjmp/longjmp.
>
> When compiled with SEH enabled, mingw64 make
Hi,
I am currently working on porting our toolset to gcc 4.7 compiled to fully
support SEH, and I have compiled gdb. This gdb crashes frequently, and I
traced that to the use of setjmp/longjmp.
When compiled with SEH enabled, mingw64 makes longjmp use RtlUnwinEx, and to
achieve that it calls
18 matches
Mail list logo