User Details
- User Since
- Nov 12 2015, 8:14 PM (270 w, 1 d)
Tue, Jan 12
imp feedback: keep the limit
Mon, Jan 11
Sun, Jan 10
Feedback: use default instead of listing cases
The advantage of listing cases instead of using default would be that if another enum value ever gets added, then the compiler's warning about unhandled cases won't have been suppressed. But I agree it's uglier. I'll change it to default.
Fri, Jan 8
Wed, Jan 6
Tue, Jan 5
Sun, Jan 3
Sat, Jan 2
Closing this one as overcome-by-events. Opened D27897.
You're right that 32-bit arm also has a bug though and needs more follow up.
Actually atomic(9) says that it will do the mod:
atomic_testandset(p, v) bit = 1 << (v % (sizeof(*p) * NBBY)); tmp = (*p & bit) != 0; *p |= bit; return (tmp);
Thu, Dec 31
Rebase, over
- r355746 / git 815db20425013129469fc0ebe9f8f00c88c58184
- r366377 / git 952c8964ba935937e396c8abc8d5629e59502e2d
I think r359311 / git ca0ec73c11a7bb9ed409466e514fa5c34b6c84b5 / D22963 (generic atomic_testand{set,clear}_long) satisfied the dependency I was worried about here so I'm going to go ahead with this. The only conflict in the rebase was the man doc date.
Wed, Dec 30
LGTM. The same construct is seen in other assignments to pointers from nr_body.
Tue, Dec 29
Mon, Dec 28
Resolved by @se's import of bc 3.2.4.
Sun, Dec 27
feedback: just link libcompiler_rt, which will now be no-SSP
Yep, just a friendly ping. I'm eager to finish the gcc work, but it is definitely not urgent. Thank you!
Sat, Dec 26
@se Now that vendor workflows are open for git, can we get upstream's fix in? Or do you prefer I just do a direct commit of upstream's fix as discussed above?
Here's the alternate where we just cross our fingers and link libcompiler_rt (no surprises):
https://github.com/rlibby/freebsd/commit/f61af4c21d62280d2b6e9c360606cae781d8f316
Fri, Dec 25
Thu, Dec 24
@wulf (sorry forgot to ask) Is it okay if I push this straight to current or would you prefer to route it through the upstream first?
@gnn did you want to take a look at this patch before it goes in? It is just turning down nuisance warnings for gcc compatibility.
Wed, Dec 23
Actually include all the changes
Tue, Dec 22
Is this specifically for LDBL_MAX?