On 02/23/2010 07:17 PM, Jay Foad wrote:
Can you try this patch:
It works! Thanks.
and if it works, possibly only each hunk of it?
Just the first hunk: works!
Just the second hunk: doesn't work
Can you explain why the volatile is necessary? Or is it working around
a problem with the compile
> Can you try this patch:
It works! Thanks.
> and if it works, possibly only each hunk of it?
Just the first hunk: works!
Just the second hunk: doesn't work
Can you explain why the volatile is necessary? Or is it working around
a problem with the compiler?
Thanks,
Jay.
On 02/23/2010 03:50 PM, Jay Foad wrote:
I'm building QEMU mipsel-linux-user with Ubuntu's GCC 4.4 on an x86
host. Whenever I try to run a trivial MIPS executable, QEMU segfaults
in cpu_loop() shortly after the call to cpu_mips_exec().
The problem seems to be that cpu_exec() doesn't preserve ebp.
Hi,
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Antti P Miettinen wrote:
>
> > Rick Vernam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on
> > > GCC 3.3.6?
> >
> > Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gc
Hi,
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Antti P Miettinen wrote:
> Rick Vernam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC
> > 3.3.6?
>
> Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be
> affected in any way if the ops were inside a
On 04/12/2007, Antti P Miettinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rick Vernam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC 3.3.6?
>
> Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be
> affected in any way if the ops were inside
Rick Vernam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC 3.3.6?
Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be
affected in any way if the ops were inside a big function (use labels
to find them) vs the current use of separa
