Re: [PATCH perf 0/4] Build fixes for gcc 6
From: Ben Hutchings
Date: Tue Jan 19 2016 - 17:04:49 EST
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 23:00 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2016.01.19 at 21:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:40:18PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > On 2016.01.19 at 21:32 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > gcc 6 warns about various things in tools/perfÂÂand with -Werror
> > > > these turn into build failures.ÂÂOne of them is a real though not
> > > > very serious bug.
> > >
> > > I've already send patches for 1,2 and 4. See:
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/460
> > >
> > > Not sure what happened with them. Also your patch number 4 is wrong, you
> > > should just delete the semicolon.
> > I think that the busy-wait, intentional or not, may be a necessary
> > part of the test case.
> Well, the author of the code thinks otherwise:
Oh I see, thanks.
Among economists, the real world is often a special case.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part