On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:08 PM Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> On 9/28/22 12:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Heh, I wanted to get it in for exactly that reason, so that a future revert
> > would not
> > introduce the test in configure. But I guess having the patch out there on
> > the archives
> > m
On 9/28/22 12:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Heh, I wanted to get it in for exactly that reason, so that a future revert would not
introduce the test in configure. But I guess having the patch out there on the archives
may also be enough.
Heh. I suppose that's fair, being wary of reversion.
r~
Heh, I wanted to get it in for exactly that reason, so that a future revert
would not introduce the test in configure. But I guess having the patch out
there on the archives may also be enough.
Paolo
Il mer 28 set 2022, 18:25 Richard Henderson
ha scritto:
> On 9/27/22 02:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote
On 9/27/22 02:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The test is slightly weaker than before, because it does not
call an extern "C" function from a C source file. However,
in practice what we seek to detect is ABI compatibility of the
various sanitizer flags, and for that it is enough to compile
anything wit
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 1:59 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> The test is slightly weaker than before, because it does not
> call an extern "C" function from a C source file. However,
> in practice what we seek to detect is ABI compatibility of the
> various sanitizer flags, and for that it is enough
The test is slightly weaker than before, because it does not
call an extern "C" function from a C source file. However,
in practice what we seek to detect is ABI compatibility of the
various sanitizer flags, and for that it is enough to compile
anything with CC and link it with CXX.
Signed-off-by
