Conversation
vtjnash
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2017
|
Got it, building 0a37bbb I will edit this comment as the build jobs complete. |
|
Got it, building 0a37bbb I will edit this comment as the build jobs complete. |
Contributor
|
depends on #21797 ? |
Contributor
Author
|
Ah, yeah. I didn't realize that that one isn't on 0.6 so nevermind.... |
|
Got it, building 0a37bbb I will edit this comment as the build jobs complete. |
Contributor
Author
|
= = ....... I think jlbuild can take a break and let this poor PR alone .......... @staticfloat |
Member
|
I've made some recent improvements, hopefully this has been addressed. |
Contributor
|
code execution isn't happening over at #22199 (comment) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This doesn't do much harm other than raising a compiler warning due to macro redefinition. The wrong value shouldn't cause any issue in practice since it only make the check more permissive and the additional range it allows is theoretically impossible to happen since it'll mean the memory of our tls variable overlaps with internal libc data structure....
@jlbuild !filter=arm,aarch64