Hi Mike, On 15 Sep 2014, at 08:33, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2014, at 5:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> > wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 02:38:45PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>> + SIBLING_CALL_P (tmp) = 1; >>> + SIBLING_CALL_P (tmp) = 1; >> >> The second time is to make sure? :-) > > No, just a last minute cut and paste… I’ll remove it. While the patch fixes the fallout from Kai's patch, I am concerned that: 1. It would be good to see how this [original] code path was tested on any other platform than Darwin (where it breaks). - I.E. a non-Mach-O test case that exercises that path of the original patch's code. - AFAICT this (exercise) does NOT happen for bootstrap and reg-test on x86-64-linux (so how was the original patch tested?). 2. The comment above the new code fragment has not been adjusted to reflect the new/changed functionality. == This has been ~ 3 months and the same questions / observations above have been raised on the PR thread and on @patches list. This does not seem to me to be a "darwin-only" issue, and just assuming that it's some unspecified fault with Darwin's address legalisation seems like an unwarranted leap (especially for x86-64, where Darwin shares a substantial part of its ABI with Linux). Perhaps it would be safer simply to revert that hunk of the original patch unless/until (1) and (2) above are addressed? 0.02GBP, as usual, Iain
