Mark Wielaard writes:
> On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 22:29 +0200, Petr Machata wrote:
>> How's this for a counter-proposal? I shamelessly reused your commit
>> message and ChangeLog wording, please let me know if that's overstepping
>> boundaries.
>
> No it isn't. And thanks for the proposal.
> But I t
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 22:29 +0200, Petr Machata wrote:
> How's this for a counter-proposal? I shamelessly reused your commit
> message and ChangeLog wording, please let me know if that's overstepping
> boundaries.
No it isn't. And thanks for the proposal.
But I think I prefer the fix using multip
How's this for a counter-proposal? I shamelessly reused your commit
message and ChangeLog wording, please let me know if that's overstepping
boundaries.
Thanks,
PM
>From 2ed5c470803d15c960a9a2574dc572ac1aa92b71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id:
<2ed5c470803d15c960a9a2574dc572ac1aa92b71.13982
On 04/23/2014 11:51 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 11:32 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Richard Henderson writes:
>>
>>> On 04/23/2014 03:17 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
Wouldn't something like this get us off the hook as well?
- (var) |= (typeof (var)) __s.i << ((nth) * 7);
On 04/23/2014 11:32 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
> Richard Henderson writes:
>
>> On 04/23/2014 03:17 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
>>> Wouldn't something like this get us off the hook as well?
>>>
>>> - (var) |= (typeof (var)) __s.i << ((nth) * 7); \
>>> + (var) |= (typeof (var)
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 04/23/2014 03:17 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Wouldn't something like this get us off the hook as well?
>>
>> -(var) |= (typeof (var)) __s.i << ((nth) * 7); \
>> +(var) |= (typeof (var)) \
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 18:12 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:46:53AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Aha. I think this is because you are using a /bin/sh that isn't bash and
> > has a 'test' that doesn't recognize '==' as string comparison. It should
> > use a single '='. Does
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:46:53AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > > PS: run-nm-self.sh fails for me for current master.
> > >
> > > How does it fail? Do you have a tests/run-nm-self.sh.log? Which arch?
> >
> > File is attached. This is on x86_64.
>
> Aha. I think this is because you are usin
On 04/23/2014 03:17 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
> Wouldn't something like this get us off the hook as well?
>
> - (var) |= (typeof (var)) __s.i << ((nth) * 7); \
> + (var) |= (typeof (var)) \
> + (((uint64_t) (typeof (
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 09:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 01:02 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 14:49 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> +2014-04-15 Florian Weimer
> >> +
> >> + * dwelf_dwarf_gnu_debugaltlink.c: New file.
> >> + * Makefile.am (libdwelf_a_SOURCE
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 09:26 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Could you post an updated patch with that documentation change. The code
> > is fine, so I want to add it to my branch now.
>
> Here's the patch. Thanks.
Rebased mjw/dwelf to master and added this patch.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Sadly the neat trick triggers undefined behavior since we are trying to
> left shift a negative value. Even though it appears to work currently I
> am slightly afraid a compiler optimization might take advantage of this
> in the future (since it is undefined behavior it co
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 00:54 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:26:53AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 21:52 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > The attached patch seems to be working for me on kFreeBSD.
> >
> > Looks reasonable to me. The other arch backends
13 matches
Mail list logo
