[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64
Hmm- I doesn't recall "name not mentioned" telling me about this
earlier- perhaps he can dig up the mail as I haven't had any mail from
him directly in years that I recall.
Is the tinderbox still failing? I haven't seen that mail- maybe I'm not
on the list it's being sent to?
There are two complaints by the sparc64 complier- now that somebody
(Marius) gave me useful information I will address it when I have a
spare moment tomorrow.
Insofar as inlining is concern- possibly so, but it demonstrably causes
no compiler complaints in about 50 other contexts. My main concern at
the moment is to make sure that the tinderbox failures are addressed and
to pretty much ignore anything else from "name not mentioned".
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Scott Long <scottl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I've been trying to reproduce this on my local hardware, but I can't
The ISP driver abuses the inline keyword. As I told mjacob earlier,
the extensive inlining not only breaks the build, but probably hurts
performance as well.
(what gcc is complaining about, specifically, is that expanding calls
to inlined functions causes isp_target_notify() to grow by more than
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@xxxxxx