On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 8:30 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:48 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:10:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > And that most certainly should trigger...
> > >
> > > Let me gdb that objtool thing.
> >
> > ---
> > Subject:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:48 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:10:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And that most certainly should trigger...
> >
> > Let me gdb that objtool thing.
>
> ---
> Subject: objtool: Improve UACCESS coverage
>
> A clang build reported an (obvious
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:48 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:10:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And that most certainly should trigger...
> >
> > Let me gdb that objtool thing.
>
> ---
> Subject: objtool: Improve UACCESS coverage
>
> A clang build reported an (obvious
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:48:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:10:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And that most certainly should trigger...
> >
> > Let me gdb that objtool thing.
>
> ---
> Subject: objtool: Improve UACCESS coverage
>
> A clang build reported a
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:10:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> And that most certainly should trigger...
>
> Let me gdb that objtool thing.
---
Subject: objtool: Improve UACCESS coverage
A clang build reported an (obvious) double CLAC while a GCC build did
not; it turns out we only re-visit i
5 matches
Mail list logo