Closed
Bug 1445553
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
More sixgill improvements
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript: GC, enhancement)
Core
JavaScript: GC
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: sfink, Assigned: sfink)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(7 files)
2.47 KB,
patch
|
bhackett1024
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.08 KB,
patch
|
bhackett1024
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.79 KB,
patch
|
bhackett1024
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.53 KB,
patch
|
bhackett1024
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1011 bytes,
patch
|
bhackett1024
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.09 KB,
patch
|
bhackett1024
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
811 bytes,
patch
|
bhackett1024
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Forked off of bug 1443233.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
I swear this didn't use to work, but it does now. Make sure we are running sixgill against the same version of gcc it was compiled for.
Attachment #8958699 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024)
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → sphink
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Handle <lambda(foo)>
Attachment #8958700 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
I think I had a confusing collision of anonymous structs from different files?
Attachment #8958701 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
Ok, this is a hack to avoid infinite recursion. There are probably better, more principled ways to fix this, but it doesn't seem worth much trouble.
Attachment #8958702 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
I doubt I ever dug enough to figure out what was really going on here, but I was getting a crash.
Attachment #8958703 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
Fix which header we include to check for VOID_CST. With newer gcc, it was getting this wrong.
Attachment #8958704 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024)
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Bleh. There are a few more -M flag variants in use now.
Attachment #8958705 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024)
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8958699 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024) → review+
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8958700 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024) → review+
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8958701 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024) → review+
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8958702 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024) → review+
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8958703 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024) → review+
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8958704 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024) → review+
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8958705 -
Flags: review?(bhackett1024) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•7 years ago
|
||
Ok, that was straightforward. I guess I won't do any fixups after all. Thanks!
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•