From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12413 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2014 02:07:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact crossgcc-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 12280 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2014 02:07:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f182.google.com Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (HELO mail-ie0-f182.google.com) (209.85.223.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 02:07:25 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x19so12194554ier.13 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:07:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.234.194 with SMTP id ug2mr271428igc.39.1418695643669; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.33.102 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:07:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <13D890DAAABFB44887D834721D06CF4B0161C34FA0@mbx1.wgti.net> References: <13D890DAAABFB44887D834721D06CF4B0161C31AAD@mbx1.wgti.net> <13D890DAAABFB44887D834721D06CF4B0161C31B72@mbx1.wgti.net> <13D890DAAABFB44887D834721D06CF4B0161C34FA0@mbx1.wgti.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 02:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Announce: Revisiting Patchwork (aka, if you have a patch in patchwork, your attention is ***required***!) From: Bryan Hundven To: Dan Wilder Cc: "crossgcc@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 Dan, On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Dan Wilder wrote: > OK those two patches under note 4, with a little backport work, did the trick for gcc-4.8.3. > > Any words of wisdom on submitting the patches to ctng and/or gcc? I've got a git clone of crosstool-ng on github. I say if you have a clone on github and can open a pull request, do that. > > My own repro and also the repro on gcc bug ran without error when built with -static using the patched compiler, on a newport. Without the patch, boom. Just curious, did you also test this with 4.9.2? IOW, does 4.9.x need this patch as well? > Running make check on the x86 build now. Great! Thanks, -Bryan > -- > Dan Wilder > ________________________________________ > From: Bryan Hundven [bryanhundven@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:01 PM > To: Dan Wilder > Cc: crossgcc@sourceware.org > Subject: Re: Announce: Revisiting Patchwork (aka, if you have a patch in patchwork, your attention is ***required***!) > > Dan, > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Dan Wilder wrote: >> Thanks Bryan. Yup their backtraces look just like mine. > > :) > >> I'll keep an eye on that bug, if somebody fixes it before I get a Round Tuit that'd be nice for me! Otherwise I guess the patch goes upstream. > > Indeed. You can always add yourself to "cc" on the bug. I saw some > other related bugs in my search, though they are "AIX"... that is > still "powerpc" (rs6000). > > Also, Check the patches in comment #4. > > As a related... but slightly off-topic thought... Another thing I'd > like to change about crosstool-ng: I dislike all these "for upstream" > patches we harbor in patches/. Maybe I'll work on a RFC on how we can > deal with them. > > Cheers, > > -Bryan > >> -- >> Dan Wilder >> ________________________________________ >> From: Bryan Hundven [bryanhundven@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 5:42 PM >> To: Dan Wilder >> Cc: crossgcc@sourceware.org >> Subject: Re: Announce: Revisiting Patchwork (aka, if you have a patch in patchwork, your attention is ***required***!) >> >> Dan, >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Dan Wilder wrote: >>> Any unwind patches for ppc in glibc-2.19? >> >> I don't see any in patchwork. >> >>> A small c++ program fails nicely on 32-bit ppc: >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> #include >>> >>> static void cause_exn(void) >>> { >>> std::cout << "cause_exn invoked" << std::endl; >>> throw 20; >>> std::cout << "cause_exn done" << std::endl; >>> } >>> >>> int main(int argc, char **argv) >>> { >>> std::cout << "Starting" << std::endl; >>> try { >>> cause_exn(); >>> } catch (int e) { >>> std::cout << "Caught exception " << e << std::endl; >>> } >>> std::cout << "Exiting" << std::endl; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Expected output is: >>> >>> Starting >>> cause_exn invoked >>> Caught exception 20 >>> Exiting >>> >>> on 32-bit ppc with glibc-2.19/gcc-4.8.3: >>> >>> Starting >>> cause_exn invoked >>> Aborted (core dumped) >>> >>> Have done some preliminary work and will have a patch for the list in a few weeks, but it would be a shame if somebody else has already gone there! >> >> Have you checked upstream? >> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master >> >>> ppc_64 works fine. As does x86, x86_64 on the same test program. >> >> Hrm... >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231 >> Related? >> >>> -- >>> Dan Wilder >>> Btw thanks Bryan for taking the cross-gcc helm and thanks Yann for the excellent work! >> >> :) >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq >>> >> >> Cheers, >> >> -Bryan -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq