From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751743AbcAVBbi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:31:38 -0500
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:47058 "EHLO
	szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751316AbcAVBbd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:31:33 -0500
Message-ID: <56A18550.6070103@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:26:40 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
CC: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        He Kuang <hekuang@huawei.com>, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Kaixu Xia <xiakaixu@huawei.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH perf 3/4] perf tools: Fix unused variables: x86_{32,64}_regoffset_table
References: <20160119213213.GB2637@decadent.org.uk> <20160119213306.GE2637@decadent.org.uk> <20160120135924.GR27085@kernel.org> <56A061D8.80502@huawei.com> <20160121153848.GD4034@kernel.org> <20160121154110.GE4034@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160121154110.GE4034@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.111.66.109]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
	refid=str=0001.0A020203.56A18568.014F,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0,
	ip=0.0.0.0,
	so=2013-06-18 04:22:30,
	dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 83929c70da445cf1c47cd62091f9fd76
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On 2016/1/21 23:41, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> But... I think that the unflexible original code has a bug, one that makes it
> not work when using gcc6 :-\
>
> So I think we should make it build in gcc6, using that patch (or does it
> have some other problem?) so that at least doing what we can do now can
> be done for those using gcc6.
>
> Then fix these shortcomings you detected.

OK. His patch does what it claims to do. Please merge it first, then
let's look into my problem.

Thank you.