On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:06:59PM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> Does this still compile with LLVM 5.0.1?
No.
cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/gas -I.
-D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I/usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/gas -I../bfd
-I/usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/gas/config
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> I'm not sure about the obstack.h bit; why does it complain about
> __INT_TO_PTR but not about __PTR_TO_INT?
So, I think what the code in question is trying to do is convert a ptr
to a a different type while keeping the same "number"
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 21:58:06 +0200
> From: Patrick Wildt
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:55:25PM -0700, William Ahern wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > LLVM 6.0.0 does now complain of code does computation on NULL pointers,
> > >
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:31:13PM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:23:24 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/include/obstack.h
> > b/gnu/usr.bin/binuti
> > ls-2.17/include/obstack.h
> > index 88c2a264adc..8839c48e95f 100644
> > --- a/gnu/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:55:25PM -0700, William Ahern wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > LLVM 6.0.0 does now complain of code does computation on NULL pointers,
> > which apparently binutils makes use of. I think we can teach binutils
> > to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:23:24 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> diff --git a/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/include/obstack.h b/gnu/usr.bin/binuti
> ls-2.17/include/obstack.h
> index 88c2a264adc..8839c48e95f 100644
> --- a/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/include/obstack.h
> +++ b/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/include
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> LLVM 6.0.0 does now complain of code does computation on NULL pointers,
> which apparently binutils makes use of. I think we can teach binutils
> to stop doing that.
>
> Is my C foo correct? Feedback?
Both (type *)0 - 1 a
Hi,
LLVM 6.0.0 does now complain of code does computation on NULL pointers,
which apparently binutils makes use of. I think we can teach binutils
to stop doing that.
Is my C foo correct? Feedback?
Patrick
diff --git a/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/bfd/elflink.c
b/gnu/usr.bin/binutils-2.17/bfd/el