From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 70096 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2017 10:58:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 70019 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2017 10:58:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:58:43 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1dUWOm-00072S-IR from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 03:58:40 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.87) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:58:37 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dUWOg-0006zP-2o; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:58:34 +0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:58:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Andreas Schwab CC: Subject: Re: Use ucontext_t not struct ucontext in linux-unwind.h files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jun 27 2017, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > Testing compilation together with current glibc with glibc's > > build-many-glibcs.py. OK to commit (mainline and active release > > branches) if that passes? > > This still doesn't work on the gcc-6-branch: That seems like an issue with a different header, outside the scope of my patch (but for which it would be natural to apply similar changes to GCC 5 and 6 branches). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com