From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933556AbcATNUi (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:20:38 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:59460 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751205AbcATNUe (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:20:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:20:28 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Markus Trippelsdorf Cc: Ben Hutchings , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH perf 0/4] Build fixes for gcc 6 Message-ID: <20160120132028.GO27085@kernel.org> References: <20160119213213.GB2637@decadent.org.uk> <20160119214018.GD321@x4> <20160119215848.GH2637@decadent.org.uk> <20160119220050.GE321@x4> <20160119222851.GM27085@kernel.org> <20160119223101.GF321@x4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160119223101.GF321@x4> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:31:01PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf escreveu: > On 2016.01.19 at 19:28 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:00:50PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf escreveu: > > > On 2016.01.19 at 21:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:40:18PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > > On 2016.01.19 at 21:32 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > gcc 6 warns about various things in tools/perf and with -Werror > > > > > > these turn into build failures. One of them is a real though not > > > > > > very serious bug. > > > > > > > > > > I've already send patches for 1,2 and 4. See: > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/460 > > > > > > > > > > Not sure what happened with them. Also your patch number 4 is wrong, you > > > > > should just delete the semicolon. > > > > > > > > I think that the busy-wait, intentional or not, may be a necessary > > > > part of the test case. > > > > > > Well, the author of the code thinks otherwise: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/269 > > > > Right, I saw those and I think I haven't processed them because I was > > waiting for those to be broken up in separate patches after I read > > Ingo's comment about one of them fixing up a real bug, a part that the > > original autor, mfleming even acked, could you please break it down into > > multiple patches? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/460 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/461 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/465 And you had done that already, my bad, going thru them now. - Arnaldo