On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:58:27PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > On 09/05/12 08:43, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:51:45PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > >> I've narrowed the regression down to this (somewhat secretive) patch: > >> squeeze-patches/Bug-732951.-r-bsmedberg-a-akeybl.patch > > > Could you check with the attached patch? > > Sorry, hasn't worked (had to apply it on top of the problem patch, but > it did not make this regression go away).
Actually, it did change the crash signature, which allowed me to go further and find the right fixes. Now, as it changes public ABI, I need to be extra cautious. Fortunately, it is "only" changing 2 functions that returned "void" to return a PRBool (so, essentially, int). Now the question is, when there is call to a function returning void, is the compiler allowed to assume that the register normally used for return values is not going to be modified? If it is, then it's not so safe of a change. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
