* On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 09:30:44PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Raghavendra D Prabhu
wrote:
* On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:38:30PM +0100, Peter Maydell
wrote:
On 4 July 2011 23:00, Raghavendra D Prabhu
wrote:
This is to avoid gcc optimizating out the c
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Raghavendra D Prabhu
wrote:
> * On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:38:30PM +0100, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>>
>> On 4 July 2011 23:00, Raghavendra D Prabhu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is to avoid gcc optimizating out the comparison in assert,
>>> due to assumption of signed over
* On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:38:30PM +0100, Peter Maydell
wrote:
On 4 July 2011 23:00, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
This is to avoid gcc optimizating out the comparison in assert,
due to assumption of signed overflow being undefined by default
(-Werror=strict-overflow).
--- a/Makefile.hw
+
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 4 July 2011 23:00, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
>>> This is to avoid gcc optimizating out the comparison in assert,
>>> due to assumption of signed overflow being undefined by d
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 July 2011 23:00, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
>> This is to avoid gcc optimizating out the comparison in assert,
>> due to assumption of signed overflow being undefined by default
>> (-Werror=strict-overflow).
>
>>--- a/Makefile.hw
>>++
On 4 July 2011 23:00, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
> This is to avoid gcc optimizating out the comparison in assert,
> due to assumption of signed overflow being undefined by default
> (-Werror=strict-overflow).
>--- a/Makefile.hw
>+++ b/Makefile.hw
>@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ include $(SRC_PATH)/rules.mak
