From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 4 18:32:59 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65703CCB; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 18:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (mail.turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:d16:4514::2]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26D19257D; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 18:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA7C61FE02D; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 20:32:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53B6F367.2080206@selasky.org> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:33:11 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Wolfskill , stable@freebsd.org, "current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] Problem with clang in 9-stable [was: r268244 (stable/9) seems to break "sysctl hw.ncpu"] References: <20140704123901.GR6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <53B6E218.5070009@selasky.org> <20140704174705.GS6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <53B6EDD1.8030506@selasky.org> <20140704181831.GV6056@albert.catwhisker.org> In-Reply-To: <20140704181831.GV6056@albert.catwhisker.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 18:32:59 -0000 Hi, I've reverted the MFC of r267960: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/268263 I did some checking and the patch makes access to a non-initialized variable, due to other missing patches prior to mine, probably making compiler differences show up on my side. It appears the patch cannot be ported to 9-stable then. So I'll just leave it there. David: Thank you for your error-report. --HPS