Re: Commit message post-editing breaks Git

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Frank Gevaerts wrote: > Let's see if we find a procedure that fixes the issue first. If that > can't be done, I think we should disallow comment changing agauin. I never liked the idea of changing messages of published commits (which for svn *is* every commit). Th

Re: Fwd: Re: kugel: r28125 - in trunk/firmware: . export target/hosted/android

Op 20-09-10 21:10, Thomas Martitz schreef: > On 20.09.2010 20:58, Maurus Cuelenaere wrote: >> Modified: trunk/firmware/export/debug.h >>> === >>> --- trunk/firmware/export/debug.h 2010-09-20 17:09:55 UTC (rev 28124) >>> +++ trunk/

Re: Commit message post-editing breaks Git

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:36:07 +0200 Frank Gevaerts wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:15:13PM +0200, Thomas Martitz wrote: > > So, what I'm asking is: Do we either re-clone the git mirror > > everytime this post-editing happens, or can we just stop using this > > svn feature again? Or do we deci

Re: RE: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

Right exactly (and changing pic register or changing one hardcoded register for another definitely hacks). I'll try and take a look later on but should just be a case of stopping trying to define/reuse these register variables between macros and have clearly defined scopes that gcc can understand i

RE: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

> I suspect gcc is failing to stack it because it thinks I want to modify > it. The explicit register("r10") stuff is a bit of a hack really, and I > could easily see that gcc interprets my intentions differently than I > had originally assumed. > IMO hacks aren't the best idea since I want to

Re: Commit message post-editing breaks Git

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:15:13PM +0200, Thomas Martitz wrote: > So, what I'm asking is: Do we either re-clone the git mirror everytime > this post-editing happens, or can we just stop using this svn feature > again? Or do we decide to just don't care about developers (and users) > using gi

Re: Fwd: Re: kugel: r28125 - in trunk/firmware: . export target/hosted/android

On 20.09.2010 20:58, Maurus Cuelenaere wrote: Modified: trunk/firmware/export/debug.h === --- trunk/firmware/export/debug.h 2010-09-20 17:09:55 UTC (rev 28124) +++ trunk/firmware/export/debug.h 2010-09-20 17:38:47 UTC (

Fwd: Re: kugel: r28125 - in trunk/firmware: . export target/hosted/android

Send this to the correct mailing list... Op 20-09-10 19:38, mai...@svn.rockbox.org schreef: > Date: 2010-09-20 19:38:47 +0200 (Mon, 20 Sep 2010) > New Revision: 28125 > > Log Message: > Redirect (L)DEBUGFs to adb logcat in DEBUG enabled builds. > Exclude compilation of firmware/debug.c for host

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

I suspect gcc is failing to stack it because it thinks I want to modify it. The explicit register("r10") stuff is a bit of a hack really, and I could easily see that gcc interprets my intentions differently than I had originally assumed. > On 20.09.2010 19:27, Dave Hooper wrote: >> >> Oh sorry, you

Commit message post-editing breaks Git

I just noticed that changing the commit message after the commit (as done in r28078) breaks git/git svn/the rockbox git mirror. The editing caused the git mirror to be out of sync, it has still the old message while git svn gets the

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

On 20.09.2010 19:27, Dave Hooper wrote: Oh sorry, you mean changing the register used for pic. I got mixed up. I personally don't know if that's expected to work for r11 or not, although that's not really the actual problem (or solution) here Isn't it the only way to determine the pic reg

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

Oh sorry, you mean changing the register used for pic. I got mixed up. I personally don't know if that's expected to work for r11 or not, although that's not really the actual problem (or solution) here > More like bad (or at least) ambiguous code that I'm not surprised gcc > treated differently to

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

More like bad (or at least) ambiguous code that I'm not surprised gcc treated differently to how the author expected/intended (see all the subsequent replies on the thread) > On 20.09.2010 11:02, Slawomir Testowy wrote: >> 2010/9/18 Nils Wallménius: >>> gcc lets you specify the pic register with -m

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

On 20.09.2010 11:02, Slawomir Testowy wrote: 2010/9/18 Nils Wallménius: gcc lets you specify the pic register with -mpic-register= so it would be a qucick test to try with r11 or something. Nils Unfortunately, this doesn't work: configure:3276: checking whether the C compiler works configu

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

(You can see from this 'new' segfault that gcc clearly hasn't realised we've trashed r11 during the immediately-preceding calculations - the add/sub/stm stuff) > Yep, same problem as far as I can tell. We've just moved the problem from > uses-of-r10 to uses-of-r11. The asm code doesn't detect or av

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

Yep, same problem as far as I can tell. We've just moved the problem from uses-of-r10 to uses-of-r11. The asm code doesn't detect or avoid using the pic register, so if you change the pic register something else will happen. The fix requires telling gcc "I want to use r10 here, so if you are using

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

2010/9/20 Rafaël Carré : > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:29:59 +0100 > Dave Hooper wrote: > >> I suppose gcc doesn't actually know whether I want to use the value >> of pic or not, when I explicitly say register("r10"). So I think it's >> assuming I do want the value of pic and that 'i know what I'm doin

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

I suppose gcc doesn't actually know whether I want to use the value of pic or not, when I explicitly say register("r10"). So I think it's assuming I do want the value of pic and that 'i know what I'm doing'. If I unrolled those macros somewhat so that I don't need to keep registers live across macr

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

Meant to type r10 not t10 > That looks weird to me! R10 still holds one side of the previous butterfly > calculation but looks like gcc is assuming it still holds some address (I > don't know how pic is supposed to work however). So it's either a gcc bug, > or we need to explicitly put t10 in clobb

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

That looks weird to me! R10 still holds one side of the previous butterfly calculation but looks like gcc is assuming it still holds some address (I don't know how pic is supposed to work however). So it's either a gcc bug, or we need to explicitly put t10 in clobbers in asm (even though gcc should

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

2010/9/20 Rafaël Carré : > > Try disass $pc-32,$pc+32 Thanks! > > > ... is not shown here, can you run the commands on the same crash? > > -- > Rafaël Carré > I'm sorry. My fault. Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0003b3a0 in pass (z_arg=, STEP_arg=, n_arg=) at fft-ffmpeg.c:

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:00:01 +0200 Slawomir Testowy wrote: > >> (gdb) bt > >> #0  0x0003b3a0 in pass (z_arg=, > >>     STEP_arg=, n_arg=) > >>     at fft-ffmpeg.c:243 0x3b3a0 ... > (gdb) disass $pc-32 $pc+32 > A syntax error in expression, near `$pc+32'. Try disass $pc-32,$pc+32 > (gdb) disas

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

2010/9/18 Nils Wallménius : > gcc lets you specify the pic register with -mpic-register= so it would > be a qucick test to try with r11 or something. > > Nils > Unfortunately, this doesn't work: configure:3276: checking whether the C compiler works configure:3298: /opt/freescale/usr/local/gcc-4.

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

2010/9/17 Dave Hooper : > I think it's hard to tell - let's see what happens without optimisations > (-O0) since the code won't always align easily to the source otherwise. > Sorry, I cannot compile Tremor with -O0: mdct-ffmpeg.c: In function 'ff_imdct_calc': mdct-ffmpeg.c:379: error: can't find

Re: Segfault with Faster MDCT patch and -fPIC

2010/9/17 Rafaël Carré : > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:26:31 +0200 > Slawomir Testowy wrote: > >> 2010/9/17 Rafaël Carré : >> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:01:48 +0200 >> > Slawomir Testowy wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> thanks for quick response. >> >> >> >> 2010/9/17 Rafaël Carré : >> >> > I think the