On 17.11.2020 04:49, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2020, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the course of my recent VAX backend modernisation effort
>
> Hi. That reminds me that VAX is "still" a cc0 target.
>
> Are you aware of anyone planning on that level of
On 06.05.2020 22:25, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 06.05.20 22:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:54:47PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/alloca-leak.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/alloca-leak.c
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>> -#include
>>>
On 04.05.2020 12:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> Please include in your patch "|| defined(__NetBSD__)".
>>>
>>> is this ok for you?
>>>
>>> This is one reason why I'd pre
On 03.05.2020 22:31, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 03.05.20 18:27, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 01.05.2020 21:49, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> FreeBSD does not have the alloca.h header. Do not include it in the test
>>> cases which do inc
On 01.05.2020 21:49, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> FreeBSD does not have the alloca.h header. Do not include it in the test
> cases which do include alloca.h.
>
> There are two versions of this patch available, the one attached which
> uses ifdef or another one which defines alloca with
On 25.03.2020 23:36, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 20:29 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> Set /tmp first, then /var/tmp. /tmp is volatile on NetBSD and
>> /var/tmp not. This improves performance in the common use.
>> The downstream copy of GCC was patched for thi
/ChangeLog
+++ b/libiberty/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2020-03-18 Kamil Rytarowski
+
+ * make-temp-file.c (choose_tmpdir): Honor NetBSD specific paths.
+
2020-03-05 Egeyar Bagcioglu
* simple-object.c (handle_lto_debug_sections): Name
diff --git a/libiberty/make-temp-file.c b
On 22.01.2020 22:27, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this patch adds the necessary bits to enable asan support on FreeBSD
> x86_64.
> Results will be produced over night.
>
> Ok for trunk once it is open again?
> TIA,
> Andreas
>
> gcc/
>
> * config/i386/i386.h: Define a new macro:
On 17.01.2020 18:15, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Those patches actually were sent to the list, and I reviewed them, and got no
> reply:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2014-12/msg00069.html
>
On 10.01.2020 17:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 07/01/20 12:44 -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> For Jason and Krister's benefit, that last comment was referring to
>>> an earlier suggestion to not try to support old NetBSD releases, see
On 07.01.2020 01:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 07/01/20 00:18 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 06.01.2020 16:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 22/12/19 09:36 +1000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb
On 07.01.2020 01:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/01/20 23:20 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 06.01.2020 16:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 22/12/19 09:36 +1000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb
On 06.01.2020 16:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/12/19 09:36 +1000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Matthew Bauer wrote:
>>> The ctype_base.h file in libstdc++-v3 is out of date for NetBSD. They
>>> have changed their ctype.h definition. It was updated in their
On 06.01.2020 16:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/12/19 09:36 +1000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Matthew Bauer wrote:
>>> The ctype_base.h file in libstdc++-v3 is out of date for NetBSD. They
>>> have changed their ctype.h definition. It was updated in their
On 22.12.2019 00:36, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Matthew Bauer wrote:
>> The ctype_base.h file in libstdc++-v3 is out of date for NetBSD. They
>> have changed their ctype.h definition. It was updated in their intree
>> libstdc++-v3 but not in the GCC one. My
On 26.10.2019 23:57, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 04.10.19 19:04, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 9/30/19 12:47 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>>> On 30.09.19 20:37, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> On 30.09.2019 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2
On 30.09.2019 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>> --- fprintf-2.c (revision 276292)
>> +++ fprintf-2.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>> /* Verify that calls to fprintf don't get eliminated even if their
>> result on
On 21.09.2019 16:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:45:42PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> GCC version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D67719
>>
>> From 422827582d84e078df2a8e303d807c830a155ab5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>>
On 21.09.2019 16:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> GCC version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386
>>
>> 2019-09-21 Kamil Rytarowski
>>
>> * cppbuiltin.c (define_builtin_macros_for_compilatio
GCC version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386
2019-09-21 Kamil Rytarowski
* cppbuiltin.c (define_builtin_macros_for_compilation_flags): Add new
builtin __SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__ macros for fsanitize=undefined switch.
* doc/cpp.texi: Document new macros.
* c-c
GCC version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D67719
From 422827582d84e078df2a8e303d807c830a155ab5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kamil Rytarowski
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:02:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] 2019-09-20 Kamil Rytarowski
* cppbuiltin.c (define_builtin_macros_for_compilation_flags
On 04.07.2019 12:21, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91084
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
>
On 27.04.2019 11:20, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Baseline compiler builds fail on all sparc*-netbsd configurations.
>
> In file included from ./tm_p.h:4,
> from /runner/crossbuilds/../gcc/gcc/config/netbsd-d.c:27:
>
On 24.04.2019 13:25, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 13:03, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>
>> On 24.04.2019 03:30, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:56, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 24.04.2019 01:13, Iain Buc
On 24.04.2019 03:30, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:56, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>
>> On 24.04.2019 01:13, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch adds missing implementation of TARGET_D_CRITSEC_SIZE, which
>>> would be
On 24.04.2019 01:13, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds missing implementation of TARGET_D_CRITSEC_SIZE, which
> would be noticed when using any bare synchronized statements.
>
> I couldn't see any target-specific alternatives of pthread_mutex_t in
> netbsd headers, so the condition
On 11.07.2018 11:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>>
>>> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw a
On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>
> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
> On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>>
>>> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnsha
On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe
> they've
> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of
On 01.03.2018 03:43, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> hi gcc-patches,
>
> as part of pinging, i'll explain the story of this patch.
>
> I want to make sure all netbsd archs work with upstream gcc.
> in this case, netbsd/arm's EABI support.
> I try to break up my changes into digestible chunks that are
On 17.01.2018 02:52, John David Anglin wrote:
> When I defined MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT, I inadvertently changed the default
> alignment for
> various hppa*-*-*bsd* targets. Nick Hudson is still maintaining the
> netbsd target.
>
> This patch corrects the default malloc alignment for 32-bit targest
On 31.10.2017 19:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:28:23PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> I'm giving it a try. I took the asan part and skipped
>> "%{!shared:libasan_preinit%O%s} ". If I understand this correctly, it
>> attempts to use the EL
On 31.10.2017 15:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:53:26PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/gcc/test_summary.log.8-20171022.txt
>>>
>>> That seems that asan pretty much doesn't work at all in GCC for netbsd.
&g
On 31.10.2017 14:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:01:25PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 30.10.2017 08:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:50:43PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> $ make check-asan
>>>> $
On 30.10.2017 08:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:50:43PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> $ make check-asan
>> $ make check-asan-dynamic
>> $ make check-ubsan
>
> That is testing of the upstream code, not of GCC and the libsanitizer
> copy in
On 26.10.2017 21:43, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> Tested on:
>
> $ uname -rms
> NetBSD 8.99.4 amd64
>
I forgot to amend everything in this patch, will fix in -v3.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
back to GCC in future merges from LLVM.
2017-10-26 Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com>
* sanitizer_common/Makefile.am (sanitizer_common_files): Add
sanitizer_platform_limits_netbsd.cc.
* sanitizer_common/Makefile.in: Regenerated.
* configure.tgt: Enable asan and
back to GCC in future merges from LLVM.
2017-10-26 Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com>
* sanitizer_common/Makefile.am (sanitizer_common_files): Add
sanitizer_platform_limits_netbsd.cc.
* sanitizer_common/Makefile.in: Regenerated.
* configure.tgt: Enable asan and
On 26.10.2017 21:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:02:25PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> 2017-10-26 Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com>
>>
>> * sanitizer_common/Makefile.am (sanitizer_common_files): Add
>> sa
2017-10-26 Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com>
* sanitizer_common/Makefile.am (sanitizer_common_files): Add
sanitizer_platform_limits_netbsd.cc.
* sanitizer_common/Makefile.in: Regenerated.
---
libsanitizer/ChangeLog| 6 ++
libsan
On 19.10.2017 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>>> Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk?
>>
>> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things:
>
> Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then
43 matches
Mail list logo
