On Wednesday 22 July 2009 00:26, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 03:36:03PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> Please try attached patch. For me it compiles. Resulting code
> >>> from memchr(buffer, '\n', pending):
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 03:36:03PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> Please try attached patch. For me it compiles. Resulting code
>>> from memchr(buffer, '\n', pending):
>>
>> fixes building for me, but please unify the branches before committ
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Please try attached patch. For me it compiles. Resulting code
>> from memchr(buffer, '\n', pending):
>
> fixes building for me, but please unify the branches before committing
Sorry. What does it mean "unify the branches"?
--
vda
__
On Monday 20 July 2009 18:42:08 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Monday 20 July 2009 23:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > With attached config, and i486-linux-uclibc-XXX
> > > toolchain, it works for me.
> > >
> > > Can you send me your .config, preprocessed source
> > > and gcc command line which gives yo
On Monday 20 July 2009 23:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > With attached config, and i486-linux-uclibc-XXX
> > toolchain, it works for me.
> >
> > Can you send me your .config, preprocessed source
> > and gcc command line which gives you trouble?
> >
> > What does your gcc -v say?
>
> defconfig i386,
On Monday 20 July 2009 16:36:36 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Monday 20 July 2009 14:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 13 February 2009 07:37:52 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 05:36:32PM -0800, v...@uclibc.org wrote:
> > > >Author: vda
> > > >Date: 2008-12-16 17:36
On Monday 20 July 2009 14:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 13 February 2009 07:37:52 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 05:36:32PM -0800, v...@uclibc.org wrote:
> > >Author: vda
> > >Date: 2008-12-16 17:36:31 -0800 (Tue, 16 Dec 2008)
> > >New Revision: 24435
> > >
On Friday 13 February 2009 07:37:52 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 05:36:32PM -0800, v...@uclibc.org wrote:
> >Author: vda
> >Date: 2008-12-16 17:36:31 -0800 (Tue, 16 Dec 2008)
> >New Revision: 24435
> >
> >Log:
> >since gcc -Os hates us and does not inline string ops,
>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 05:36:32PM -0800, v...@uclibc.org wrote:
>Author: vda
>Date: 2008-12-16 17:36:31 -0800 (Tue, 16 Dec 2008)
>New Revision: 24435
>
>Log:
>since gcc -Os hates us and does not inline string ops,
I don't remember offhand if we deliberately turned them off.
>implement inline ver
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:45:02AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>Just as the "open solaris" developers don't share code with the Linux
>developers, the FSF won't take patches unless you literally sign over your
>copyrights to them.
I don't know about slowaris, but for the GCC project, the copyrigh
On Monday 22 December 2008 08:31:54 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> >I don't know why it almost feels like -Os people are second class
> >citizens in the Linux tribe.
>
> There are very few people who care or are willing to spend their time
> on Os, unfortunately.
Please don't confuse gcc with "
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:22:56PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>gcc thinks that -Os is a perfect excuse to stop optimizing.
>It does not optimize constant divisions either.
Yes, i've seen your PRs about this. What's the status of your
proposed patches? Would be nice if you could resubmit them
fo
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 05:36:32PM -0800, v...@uclibc.org wrote:
>Author: vda
>Date: 2008-12-16 17:36:31 -0800 (Tue, 16 Dec 2008)
>New Revision: 24435
>
>Log:
>since gcc -Os hates us and does not inline string ops,
>implement inline versions of some of them.
>Enable only those which result roughly
13 matches
Mail list logo
