Hi Jonas,
>> I think I took care of this in 10.4-EOL but the change may not have made
>> it to 10.5-EOL (but it should have). I see in the current state that
>> 10.4-EOL's llvm33.patch has the corrected context-related patch. I don't
>> have powerpc-darwin9 to test on, but someone else had te
On 10 Oct 2013, at 02:20, David Fang wrote:
I think I took care of this in 10.4-EOL but the change may not have
made it to 10.5-EOL (but it should have). I see in the current
state that 10.4-EOL's llvm33.patch has the corrected context-related
patch. I don't have powerpc-darwin9 to test
Hi Jonas,
I think I took care of this in 10.4-EOL but the change may not
have made it to 10.5-EOL (but it should have). I see in the current state
that 10.4-EOL's llvm33.patch has the corrected context-related patch. I
don't have powerpc-darwin9 to test on, but someone else had tested i
On 10/9/13 5:59 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've posted the full output from the build process at
> http://pastebin.com/G3wzmRXw
>
> There appear to be two problems
> a) the wrong version of the mcontext struct is included or accessed by
> Address Sanitizer (line 1052 of the pastebin for the
Hi,
I've posted the full output from the build process at
http://pastebin.com/G3wzmRXw
There appear to be two problems
a) the wrong version of the mcontext struct is included or accessed by
Address Sanitizer (line 1052 of the pastebin for the initial
bootstrap, lines 2922 and 3174 once clang
