* Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch [not found] <1037243108.4336.1453770172960.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> @ 2016-01-26 1:17 ` Mathieu Desnoyers 2016-01-26 16:28 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-26 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Khem Raj; +Cc: lttng-dev, openembedded-core Re-sending with oe-core ML in CC. ----- On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote: > Hi, > > We are noticing the presence of the following patch in various > openembedded gcc versions: > > 0024-PR-target-32219.patch > > "From e0d15f4f8bf28c351b9215ca37f1caa24df0e1fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:18:54 +0400 > Subject: [PATCH 24/35] PR target/32219 > > * varasm.c (default_binds_local_p_1): Weak data is not local. > > Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > > Upstream-Status: Backport" > > However, contrarily to its "Backport" status, that patch is > not upstream in gcc, and we're starting to wonder if this > would be the patch that breaks handling of start/stop automatic > hidden symbols we use in lttng-ust. > > We are only experiencing problems on the various openembedded > compilers, but on no other distro (with same compiler versions), > which leads us to suspect a buggy distro-specific gcc patch. > > We've been testing with openembedded gcc-4.9.2-r0. > > The original gold linker issue that this patch was trying to > address seems to have been fixed in the gold linke since > then. > > Refs: > http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2014-May/023112.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-05/msg00042.html > http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=3cb2b003db7371b3a47d02c08352a262e1e419b4 > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 > > Thoughts ? > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch [not found] <1037243108.4336.1453770172960.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> 2016-01-26 1:17 ` Bogus openembedded gcc patch Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-26 16:28 ` Khem Raj 2016-01-26 18:51 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer 2016-01-26 19:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers 1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2016-01-26 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Desnoyers; +Cc: lttng-dev, openembedded-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2082 bytes --] > On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > We are noticing the presence of the following patch in various > openembedded gcc versions: > > 0024-PR-target-32219.patch > > "From e0d15f4f8bf28c351b9215ca37f1caa24df0e1fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:18:54 +0400 > Subject: [PATCH 24/35] PR target/32219 > > * varasm.c (default_binds_local_p_1): Weak data is not local. > > Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > > Upstream-Status: Backport" > > However, contrarily to its "Backport" status, that patch is > not upstream in gcc, and we're starting to wonder if this > would be the patch that breaks handling of start/stop automatic > hidden symbols we use in lttng-ust. > > We are only experiencing problems on the various openembedded > compilers, but on no other distro (with same compiler versions), > which leads us to suspect a buggy distro-specific gcc patch. > > We've been testing with openembedded gcc-4.9.2-r0. > > The original gold linker issue that this patch was trying to > address seems to have been fixed in the gold linke since > then. > > Refs: > http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2014-May/023112.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-05/msg00042.html > http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=3cb2b003db7371b3a47d02c08352a262e1e419b4 > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 > > Thoughts ? OE has defaulted to gcc5 since last release, and gold issue is fixed in binutils 2.25 which is what we use in 2.0 as well so it might be OK to unbolt this fix. Although I am not sure about the original problem reported in PR32219 is fixed for gcc 4.9 if we remove this fix. Have you narrowed down your issue to this patch ? if not, then it would be good to do so > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com [-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch 2016-01-26 16:28 ` Khem Raj @ 2016-01-26 18:51 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer 2016-01-26 19:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2016-01-26 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: lttng-dev, Mathieu Desnoyers, oe-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2450 bytes --] On 26 Jan 2016 17:28, "Khem Raj" <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers < mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We are noticing the presence of the following patch in various > > openembedded gcc versions: > > > > 0024-PR-target-32219.patch > > > > "From e0d15f4f8bf28c351b9215ca37f1caa24df0e1fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:18:54 +0400 > > Subject: [PATCH 24/35] PR target/32219 > > > > * varasm.c (default_binds_local_p_1): Weak data is not local. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > > > > Upstream-Status: Backport" > > > > However, contrarily to its "Backport" status, that patch is > > not upstream in gcc, and we're starting to wonder if this > > would be the patch that breaks handling of start/stop automatic > > hidden symbols we use in lttng-ust. > > > > We are only experiencing problems on the various openembedded > > compilers, but on no other distro (with same compiler versions), > > which leads us to suspect a buggy distro-specific gcc patch. > > > > We've been testing with openembedded gcc-4.9.2-r0. > > > > The original gold linker issue that this patch was trying to > > address seems to have been fixed in the gold linke since > > then. > > > > Refs: > > http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2014-May/023112.html > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-05/msg00042.html > > http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=3cb2b003db7371b3a47d02c08352a262e1e419b4 > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 > > > > Thoughts ? > > OE has defaulted to gcc5 since last release, and gold issue is fixed in binutils 2.25 > which is what we use in 2.0 as well so it might be OK to unbolt this fix. Although I am not sure > about the original problem reported in PR32219 is fixed for gcc 4.9 if we remove this fix. > Have you narrowed down your issue to this patch ? if not, then it would be good to do so See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32219 this is fixed for at least 6.0 so should certainly be dropped for any fixed GCC. Not sure if anybody is willing to backport this one, you might ask. Thanks, > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mathieu > > > > -- > > Mathieu Desnoyers > > EfficiOS Inc. > > http://www.efficios.com > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3772 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch 2016-01-26 16:28 ` Khem Raj 2016-01-26 18:51 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer @ 2016-01-26 19:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers 2016-01-26 23:14 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-26 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: lttng-dev, openembedded-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3147 bytes --] ----- On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Khem Raj raj.khem@gmail.com wrote: >> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> We are noticing the presence of the following patch in various >> openembedded gcc versions: >> >> 0024-PR-target-32219.patch >> >> "From e0d15f4f8bf28c351b9215ca37f1caa24df0e1fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> >> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:18:54 +0400 >> Subject: [PATCH 24/35] PR target/32219 >> >> * varasm.c (default_binds_local_p_1): Weak data is not local. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> >> >> Upstream-Status: Backport" >> >> However, contrarily to its "Backport" status, that patch is >> not upstream in gcc, and we're starting to wonder if this >> would be the patch that breaks handling of start/stop automatic >> hidden symbols we use in lttng-ust. >> >> We are only experiencing problems on the various openembedded >> compilers, but on no other distro (with same compiler versions), >> which leads us to suspect a buggy distro-specific gcc patch. >> >> We've been testing with openembedded gcc-4.9.2-r0. >> >> The original gold linker issue that this patch was trying to >> address seems to have been fixed in the gold linke since >> then. >> >> Refs: >> http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2014-May/023112.html >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-05/msg00042.html >> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=3cb2b003db7371b3a47d02c08352a262e1e419b4 >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 >> >> Thoughts ? > > OE has defaulted to gcc5 since last release, and gold issue is fixed in binutils > 2.25 > which is what we use in 2.0 as well so it might be OK to unbolt this fix. > Although I am not sure > about the original problem reported in PR32219 is fixed for gcc 4.9 if we remove > this fix. > Have you narrowed down your issue to this patch ? if not, then it would be good > to do so Yes, we have narrowed down our problem to this specific patch by removing the patch from the OE gcc patches, rebuilding gcc, and then building our test program with that gcc. The problem goes away when we do so, which points directly to that patch as a culprit. Test program is attached. Faulty[gcc 4.9-r0 with patch 0024]: main: myvar addr=0x600c90 __start___test=0x600c90 fct: myvar addr=0x7f8733d1eae8 __start___test=0x600c90 fct2: myvar addr=0x7f8733d1eaec __start___test=0x600c90 fct3: myvar addr=0x600c94 __start___test=0x600c90 Valid[gcc 4.9-r0 without patch 0024]: main: myvar addr=0x600c60 __start___test=0x600c60 fct: myvar addr=0x7fb62c758a90 __start___test=0x7fb62c758a90 fct2: myvar addr=0x7fb62c758a94 __start___test=0x7fb62c758a90 fct3: myvar addr=0x600c64 __start___test=0x600c60 Thanks, Mathieu > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mathieu >> >> -- >> Mathieu Desnoyers >> EfficiOS Inc. > > http://www.efficios.com -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com [-- Attachment #2: yocto-hidden-bug2.tar.gz --] [-- Type: application/x-compressed-tar, Size: 681 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch 2016-01-26 19:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-26 23:14 ` Khem Raj 2016-01-27 11:31 ` Burton, Ross 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2016-01-26 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: lttng-dev, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3472 bytes --] On Jan 26, 2016 2:59 PM, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > > ----- On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Khem Raj raj.khem@gmail.com wrote: > > >> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers < mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> We are noticing the presence of the following patch in various > >> openembedded gcc versions: > >> > >> 0024-PR-target-32219.patch > >> > >> "From e0d15f4f8bf28c351b9215ca37f1caa24df0e1fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > >> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:18:54 +0400 > >> Subject: [PATCH 24/35] PR target/32219 > >> > >> * varasm.c (default_binds_local_p_1): Weak data is not local. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > >> > >> Upstream-Status: Backport" > >> > >> However, contrarily to its "Backport" status, that patch is > >> not upstream in gcc, and we're starting to wonder if this > >> would be the patch that breaks handling of start/stop automatic > >> hidden symbols we use in lttng-ust. > >> > >> We are only experiencing problems on the various openembedded > >> compilers, but on no other distro (with same compiler versions), > >> which leads us to suspect a buggy distro-specific gcc patch. > >> > >> We've been testing with openembedded gcc-4.9.2-r0. > >> > >> The original gold linker issue that this patch was trying to > >> address seems to have been fixed in the gold linke since > >> then. > >> > >> Refs: > >> http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2014-May/023112.html > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-05/msg00042.html > >> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=3cb2b003db7371b3a47d02c08352a262e1e419b4 > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 > >> > >> Thoughts ? > > > > OE has defaulted to gcc5 since last release, and gold issue is fixed in binutils > > 2.25 > > which is what we use in 2.0 as well so it might be OK to unbolt this fix. > > Although I am not sure > > about the original problem reported in PR32219 is fixed for gcc 4.9 if we remove > > this fix. > > Have you narrowed down your issue to this patch ? if not, then it would be good > > to do so > > Yes, we have narrowed down our problem to this specific patch by > removing the patch from the OE gcc patches, rebuilding gcc, and > then building our test program with that gcc. The problem goes > away when we do so, which points directly to that patch as a > culprit. > > Test program is attached. Ok I think we can remove this from master and jethro release > > Faulty[gcc 4.9-r0 with patch 0024]: > > main: myvar addr=0x600c90 __start___test=0x600c90 > fct: myvar addr=0x7f8733d1eae8 __start___test=0x600c90 > fct2: myvar addr=0x7f8733d1eaec __start___test=0x600c90 > fct3: myvar addr=0x600c94 __start___test=0x600c90 > > Valid[gcc 4.9-r0 without patch 0024]: > > main: myvar addr=0x600c60 __start___test=0x600c60 > fct: myvar addr=0x7fb62c758a90 __start___test=0x7fb62c758a90 > fct2: myvar addr=0x7fb62c758a94 __start___test=0x7fb62c758a90 > fct3: myvar addr=0x600c64 __start___test=0x600c60 > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Mathieu > >> > >> -- > >> Mathieu Desnoyers > >> EfficiOS Inc. > > > http://www.efficios.com > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5280 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch 2016-01-26 23:14 ` Khem Raj @ 2016-01-27 11:31 ` Burton, Ross 2016-01-27 11:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Burton, Ross @ 2016-01-27 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj Cc: lttng-dev, Mathieu Desnoyers, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --] On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, we have narrowed down our problem to this specific patch by > > removing the patch from the OE gcc patches, rebuilding gcc, and > > then building our test program with that gcc. The problem goes > > away when we do so, which points directly to that patch as a > > culprit. > > > > Test program is attached. > > Ok I think we can remove this from master and jethro release > Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal patch? Cheerss, Ross [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1052 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch 2016-01-27 11:31 ` Burton, Ross @ 2016-01-27 11:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers 2016-01-27 13:30 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-27 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: lttng-dev, openembedded-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1001 bytes --] ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: > On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj < raj.khem@gmail.com > wrote: >> > Yes, we have narrowed down our problem to this specific patch by >> > removing the patch from the OE gcc patches, rebuilding gcc, and >> > then building our test program with that gcc. The problem goes >> > away when we do so, which points directly to that patch as a >> > culprit. >> > Test program is attached. >> Ok I think we can remove this from master and jethro release > Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal > patch? Thanks for asking, but for me a Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> in the patch commit messge is good enough. You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread also in the commit message. Thanks, Mathieu > Cheerss, > Ross -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2617 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [lttng-dev] Bogus openembedded gcc patch 2016-01-27 11:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-27 13:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers 2016-01-27 17:26 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-27 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ross Burton; +Cc: lttng-dev, openembedded-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1447 bytes --] ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: >> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj < raj.khem@gmail.com > wrote: >>> > Yes, we have narrowed down our problem to this specific patch by >>> > removing the patch from the OE gcc patches, rebuilding gcc, and >>> > then building our test program with that gcc. The problem goes >>> > away when we do so, which points directly to that patch as a >>> > culprit. >>> > Test program is attached. >>> Ok I think we can remove this from master and jethro release >> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal >> patch? > Thanks for asking, but for me a > Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > in the patch commit messge is good enough. > You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread > also in the commit message. I have a few minutes in front of me, I'll prepare a patch. Thanks, Mathieu > Thanks, > Mathieu >> Cheerss, >> Ross > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com > _______________________________________________ > lttng-dev mailing list > lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org > http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3677 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [lttng-dev] Bogus openembedded gcc patch 2016-01-27 13:30 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2016-01-27 17:26 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2016-01-27 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: lttng-dev, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1734 bytes --] On Jan 27, 2016 8:30 AM, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > > ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers < mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: >> >> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Yes, we have narrowed down our problem to this specific patch by >>>> > removing the patch from the OE gcc patches, rebuilding gcc, and >>>> > then building our test program with that gcc. The problem goes >>>> > away when we do so, which points directly to that patch as a >>>> > culprit. >>>> > >>>> > Test program is attached. >>>> >>>> Ok I think we can remove this from master and jethro release >>> >>> >>> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal patch? >> >> >> Thanks for asking, but for me a >> >> Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> >> >> in the patch commit messge is good enough. >> You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread >> also in the commit message. > > > I have a few minutes in front of me, I'll prepare a patch. Ok. I think for jethro and master its ok, for other branches. This needs testing > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mathieu >> >>> >>> Cheerss, >>> Ross >>> >> >> -- >> Mathieu Desnoyers >> EfficiOS Inc. >> http://www.efficios.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lttng-dev mailing list >> lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org >> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev > > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2943 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-27 17:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1037243108.4336.1453770172960.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
2016-01-26 1:17 ` Bogus openembedded gcc patch Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-01-26 16:28 ` Khem Raj
2016-01-26 18:51 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2016-01-26 19:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-01-26 23:14 ` Khem Raj
2016-01-27 11:31 ` Burton, Ross
2016-01-27 11:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-01-27 13:30 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-01-27 17:26 ` Khem Raj
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox