On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > 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.
Erf, forget it, even before considering this, there's the obvious change in symbol mangling that prevents the change from being safe. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
