From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 29 08:56:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: amd64@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F7283E; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:56:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E00774; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:56:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cpc27-cmbg15-2-0-cust235.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com [86.27.188.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4T8uFZG047546 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 29 May 2013 08:56:16 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <51A5C17C.1070403@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:56:09 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5FE9094B-5B25-4E87-9674-669011C4DABF@FreeBSD.org> References: <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <51A3B8AB.5080808@FreeBSD.org> <521EEFA1-E116-41F5-B618-238E7AA092A8@bsdimp.com> <3C29AD82-077D-4E6B-94C7-5D069A130348__27528.1591726982$1369769859$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org> <51A5A6F4.8000501@FreeBSD.org> <51A5C17C.1070403@FreeBSD.org> To: Andriy Gapon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:39:25 +0000 Cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Pedro Giffuni , Rui Paulo , Warner Losh X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 08:56:19 -0000 On 29 May 2013, at 09:51, Andriy Gapon wrote: >=20 > Yes, that bug breaks some DTrace scripts that are critical to me. > Otherwise I would not have noticed the issue. Looking at the bug report, you filed it against clang 3.2, just after = 3.3 was branched. Did you test 3.3? Is it fixed? I can only assume = that, since the bug has been present in the system compiler for 6 months = without your noticing that it can't be that critical... David