similar to: vorbis-tools 1.4.0, ogg123 and MinGW

Mark Shannon wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Mark Shannon wrote: >>> Nick Johnson wrote: >>>>> probably there should be a switch to choose whether codegen should turn >>>>> unwind/invoke into dwarf or setjmp/longjmp style code. >>> It seems to me that there is an implicit, and undocumented, assumption >>> that unwinding needs to

Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Shannon wrote: >> Andrew Haley wrote: >>> Mark Shannon wrote: >>>> Nick Johnson wrote: >>>>>> probably there should be a switch to choose whether codegen should turn >>>>>> unwind/invoke into dwarf or setjmp/longjmp style code. >>>> It seems to me that there is an implicit, and undocumented,

Mark Shannon wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Mark Shannon wrote: >>> Andrew Haley wrote: >>>> Mark Shannon wrote: >>>>> Nick Johnson wrote: >>>>>>> probably there should be a switch to choose whether codegen should turn >>>>>>> unwind/invoke into dwarf or setjmp/longjmp style code. >>>>> It seems

Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Shannon wrote: >> Andrew Haley wrote: >>> Mark Shannon wrote: >>>> Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>> Mark Shannon wrote: >>>>>> Nick Johnson wrote: >>>>>>>> probably there should be a switch to choose whether codegen should turn >>>>>>>> unwind/invoke into dwarf or

Hi, I'm running into some strange errors with the CBE. I've narrowed the problem down to a very simple CPP program: main.cpp: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <string> static std::string hello("Hello world!"); int main() { return 0; }

Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Shannon wrote: >> Nick Johnson wrote: >>>> probably there should be a switch to choose whether codegen should turn >>>> unwind/invoke into dwarf or setjmp/longjmp style code. >> It seems to me that there is an implicit, and undocumented, assumption >> that unwinding needs to handle stack-allocated objects. >> >>

Mark Shannon wrote: > Nick Johnson wrote: >>> probably there should be a switch to choose whether codegen should turn >>> unwind/invoke into dwarf or setjmp/longjmp style code. > > It seems to me that there is an implicit, and undocumented, assumption > that unwinding needs to handle stack-allocated objects. > > In languages without stack-allocated objects

Hi, I'm experiencing weird things with the vbox driver when using multiple threads. Following is the snippet of code I experience problems with /*****************************************************/ #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <libvirt/libvirt.h> void *create_and_destroy(void *arg) { virDomainPtr dom = (virDomainPtr)arg;

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Mark, > >> So who is responsible for (as stated under the invoke description in the >> language reference) "ensure that proper cleanup is performed in the case >> of either a longjmp or a thrown exception"? > > the unwinder (however it works) needs to stop at each invoke and run > the code in the unwind block of the invoke. I

Hi all, We observed that under certain circumstances pthread_create() (libasan implemention) does not return. The conditions are the following: - address sanitizer enabled - main and child thread run on the same CPU (affinity) - real-time scheduling policy for both threads - different scheduling priority values (this includes the case of setting a real-time policy for one of the threads and

Hi guys, I was looking at the thread creation API. Exactly, why do we use PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM instead of PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS ? http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=blob;f=dlls/ntdll/thread.c#l611 What is the technical difference? I remember, some years ago, that on SunOS 8 setting the latter it would make one thread only scheduled globally for the process, instead, using the first would

It is never a wise idea to pass stack-allocated storage to another thread during pthread_create() unless you can guarantee that the new thread will complete prior to the calling thread returning and ending the lifetime of that storage. We were violating this, with the result in a SEGV in the detached child thread during threadlocal_set_sockaddr() with parameters pointing into thread_data which

Hi Mark, > So who is responsible for (as stated under the invoke description in the > language reference) "ensure that proper cleanup is performed in the case > of either a longjmp or a thrown exception"? the unwinder (however it works) needs to stop at each invoke and run the code in the unwind block of the invoke. I think it is important that the default method of code

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Duncan Sands<baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Yes.  Wasn't that obvious?  Sorry, I don't understand what point you're >> trying to make. > > I noticed that some people (not you) seem to think that the dwarf > unwinder knows special things about signals, pthread_cleanup_pop > and whatnot.  I was just trying to say that it

Ok. Sounds good. You are suggesting that icecast cannot find the libgcc_s.so.1 file? Do you know how i can figure out what path icecast is searching? Or how I can modify it? I tried moving the lib around the icecast root without luck. Or do I not understand what you have told me? Maybe you are suggesting it is a debian related bug? Thanks, Alex Martin http://www.rettc.com ----- Original

We've been using libvirt based containers under CentOS 7 and everything has been working fine. One application we run in our containers is ctdb, which uses SCHED_FIFO (real time) threads. This has been working without problems until our recent upgrade to CentOS 7.3. For some reason, ctdb is no longer able to create real time threads, and I've tried a simple program myself that

Hi All, I am creating an instrumentation pass using LLVM libraries. I am using clang++ (version 2.9) to compile cpp code into LLVM bit code. When I generate the llvm bit code using clang++ using -O3, I get many instances of instructions that look like the following. br i1 icmp ne (i8* bitcast (i32 (i32)* @pthread_cancel to i8*), i8* null), label %bb23, label %bb25 Here three LLVM instructions

Jon Harrop wrote: > Having implemented a GC for HLVM, I am now turning my attention to > implementing a GC that supports parallelism. To do this, I would like to use > atomic instructions as well as mutexes. What is the status of LLVM's atomic > instrinsics (e.g. CAS)? Is anyone using them in real projects? > > I realised that an obvious test would be to compile some

Here is a extract of my posting on Ubuntu forum that so far has not solved my problem: "I have been using Wine and the programs for the past 12 months without any hitches under 32bit 8.04 and 8.10. I did a clean install of 64bit 9.04 and installed wine and the programs I need to run. It behaved oddly right from the start and then just stopped. You can see the program trying to start, and then

> Yes. Wasn't that obvious? Sorry, I don't understand what point you're > trying to make. I noticed that some people (not you) seem to think that the dwarf unwinder knows special things about signals, pthread_cleanup_pop and whatnot. I was just trying to say that it does not: all this stuff is covered by the standard exception handling concepts. Ciao, Duncan