On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 15.02.2012, at 07:55, Alex Barcelo wrote:
>> ping? is this ok? Or it is not trivial at all, and better do a normal patch?
>> And write it better?
>
> The patch is fine, but it's not trivial. It's a ppc patch, hence it should've
> gotten C
On 15.02.2012, at 07:55, Alex Barcelo wrote:
> ping? is this ok? Or it is not trivial at all, and better do a normal patch?
> And write it better?
The patch is fine, but it's not trivial. It's a ppc patch, hence it should've
gotten CC'ed to qemu-ppc :). Also, whatever mailer you used to send t
ping? is this ok? Or it is not trivial at all, and better do a normal
patch? And write it better?
I have no inconvenience on doing so, but I didn't want to duplicate patches
in the list.
El 10/02/2012 10:57, "Alex Barcelo" escribió:
> // Test source and desired /real output:
>
> #include
> #inc
// Test source and desired /real output:
#include
#include
#include
#include
void handler(int sig)
{
unsigned int a;
// to prevent uninitialized stack, normally a = 0
if ( a>10 ) a = 0;
a = a + 1;
printf ("new value: %d\n" , a );
if (a > 7) _exit(a);
return;
}
int main()
This is v2 of the patch "sas_ss_flags bug for powerpc", which had a
horrible name and no description.
All architectures work the same way, and all check for sas_ss_flags ==
0. The powerpc lines are wrong, and do the check the other way round
(it's a qemu internal check, which is done wrong only fo
