Re: Trivial fix to last change

[cyg Simple <cygsimple at gmail dot com>]

On 12/14/2015 10:06 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 14 08:38, cyg Simple wrote:
>> On 12/14/2015 4:25 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Dec 11 17:14, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> cygwin1.dll doesn't build on x86 after the last commit (eed35ef).  The
>>>> trivial patch attached fixes it.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>
>>>> From 1cd61c54994b2ba6c6ec1d1f8f1249f5f8fd4af3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
>>>> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:08:28 -0500
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix regparm attribute of fhandler_base::fstat_helper
>>>>
>>>> * winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc (fhandler_base::fstat_helper):
>>>> Align regparm attribute to declaration in fhandler.h.
>>>> ---
>>>>  winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog             | 5 +++++
>>>>  winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc | 2 +-
>>>>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog b/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog
>>>> index 3c9804b..7079baa 100644
>>>> --- a/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog
>>>> +++ b/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog
>>>> @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
>>>> +2015-12-11  Ken Brown  <kbrown@cornell.edu>
>>>> +
>>>> +	* fhandler_disk_file.cc (fhandler_base::fstat_helper): Align
>>>> +	regparm attribute to declaration in fhandler.h.
>>>> +
>>>>  2015-12-10  Corinna Vinschen  <corinna@vinschen.de>
>>>>  
>>>>  	* path.h (class path_conv_handle): Use FILE_ALL_INFORMATION instead of
>>>> diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc b/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc
>>>> index fe9dd03..1dd1b8c 100644
>>>> --- a/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc
>>>> +++ b/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc
>>>> @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ fhandler_base::fstat_fs (struct stat *buf)
>>>>    return res;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> -int __reg3
>>>> +int __reg2
>>>>  fhandler_base::fstat_helper (struct stat *buf)
>>>>  {
>>>>    IO_STATUS_BLOCK st;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.6.2
>>>>
>>>
>>> Applied.  I really should build on *both* architectures before applying
>>> a patch :-P
>>>
>>
>> Would it have made more sense to test for architecture target?
> 
> I don't understand the question here.  -v, please?
> 

Never mind; I was still sleeping and dreaming badly.

-- 
cyg Simple