Message ID | 20140624114248.GN4477@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com |
---|---|
State | Committed |
Headers | show |
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > Yeah, all of the failures are the same as above. How about this for a > fix: Seems OK (as far as I can tell, nothing references the name of this field), as long as you'd done the usual testing, and as long as a bug is filed, referenced in the ChangeLog entry and NEWS and closed if the issue was present in a release.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:03:19PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > > Yeah, all of the failures are the same as above. How about this for a > > fix: > > Seems OK (as far as I can tell, nothing references the name of this > field), as long as you'd done the usual testing, and as long as a bug is > filed, referenced in the ChangeLog entry and NEWS and closed if the issue > was present in a release. Tested x86_64 and x86 to verify that both have no FAILs, filed and closed 17084 with a mention in the NEWS. Siddhesh
diff --git a/sysdeps/x86/nptl/bits/pthreadtypes.h b/sysdeps/x86/nptl/bits/pthreadtypes.h index 7f8076b..aad2e14 100644 --- a/sysdeps/x86/nptl/bits/pthreadtypes.h +++ b/sysdeps/x86/nptl/bits/pthreadtypes.h @@ -115,10 +115,10 @@ typedef union { short __espins; short __elision; -# define __spins d.__espins -# define __elision d.__elision +# define __spins __elision_data.__espins +# define __elision __elision_data.__elision # define __PTHREAD_SPINS { 0, 0 } - } d; + } __elision_data; __pthread_slist_t __list; }; #endif