On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > Are you both on the same architecture?
>
> I tested both on amd64 and i386. For i386, it was -m32 for clang, and
> native 32bit gcc 4.8.1, stock build from the tarb
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Are you both on the same architecture?
I tested both on amd64 and i386. For i386, it was -m32 for clang, and
native 32bit gcc 4.8.1, stock build from the tarball.
pgpx_vSDnRqU4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:11:34 +0200
Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 23:05, Konstantin Belousov
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >> On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200,
On Jun 26, 2013, at 23:05, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:05:34 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > >> This revision is not in 9.1-R
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >> This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the
> >> problem can also be reproduced th
On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the
>> problem can also be reproduced there.
> ...
>> This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For example, gcc 4.8
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Could you replicate the problem using clang on stable/9 and HEAD? (I
> didn't test gcc > 4.2.1 myself).
On stable no, it is not reproducable. As I understand, stable clang is
3.2-something.
On HEAD with clang, I do see the indentat
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:45:21 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the
> > problem can also be reproduced there.
> ...
> > This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For exam
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the
> problem can also be reproduced there.
...
> This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For example, gcc 4.8 generates:
I just tested the thing with gcc 4.8 on up to date
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:26:09 +0200
Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 13:31, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:00:40 +0200
> > Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >> On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> The problem is that static initialization happens in the ex
On Jun 26, 2013, at 13:31, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:00:40 +0200
> Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>> ...
>>> The problem is that static initialization happens in the expected
>>> order (same translation unit), but termination does *not* ha
12 matches
Mail list logo
