Merge lp:~ams-codesourcery/gcc-linaro/lp936863-4.6 into lp:gcc-linaro/4.6

[Andrew Stubbs]

Fix lp936863 by preventing null-pointer dereference.

This patch is not needed upstream.

[Michael Hope (michaelh1)]

cbuild has taken a snapshot of this branch at r106870 and queued it for build.

The diff against the ancestor r106869 is available at:
 http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/snapshots/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6.diff

and will be built on the following builders:
 a9-builder armv5-builder i686 x86_64

You can track the build queue at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/scheduler

cbuild-snapshot: gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6
cbuild-ancestor: lp:gcc-linaro+bzr106869
cbuild-state: check

[Michael Hope (michaelh1)]

cbuild successfully built this on i686-natty-cbuild250-oort2-i686r1.

The build results are available at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/i686-natty-cbuild250-oort2-i686r1

The testsuite results are the same as the branch point lp:gcc-linaro+bzr106869

The full diff is at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/i686-natty-cbuild250-oort2-i686r1/testsuite-diff.txt

The full testsuite results are at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/i686-natty-cbuild250-oort2-i686r1/gcc-testsuite.txt

cbuild-checked: i686-natty-cbuild250-oort2-i686r1

[Michael Hope (michaelh1)]

cbuild successfully built this on x86_64-natty-cbuild250-oort1-x86_64r1.

The build results are available at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/x86_64-natty-cbuild250-oort1-x86_64r1

The testsuite results are the same as the branch point lp:gcc-linaro+bzr106869

The full diff is at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/x86_64-natty-cbuild250-oort1-x86_64r1/testsuite-diff.txt

The full testsuite results are at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/x86_64-natty-cbuild250-oort1-x86_64r1/gcc-testsuite.txt

cbuild-checked: x86_64-natty-cbuild250-oort1-x86_64r1

[Michael Hope (michaelh1)]

cbuild successfully built this on armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda02-armv5r2.

The build results are available at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda02-armv5r2

The testsuite results are the same as the branch point lp:gcc-linaro+bzr106869

The full diff is at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda02-armv5r2/testsuite-diff.txt

The full testsuite results are at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda02-armv5r2/gcc-testsuite.txt

cbuild-checked: armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda02-armv5r2

[Michael Hope (michaelh1)]

cbuild successfully built this on armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda03-cortexa9r1.

The build results are available at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda03-cortexa9r1

The testsuite results are the same as the branch point lp:gcc-linaro+bzr106869

The full diff is at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda03-cortexa9r1/testsuite-diff.txt

The full testsuite results are at:
 http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.6+bzr106870~ams-codesourcery~lp936863-4.6/logs/armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda03-cortexa9r1/gcc-testsuite.txt

cbuild-checked: armv7l-natty-cbuild250-tcpanda03-cortexa9r1

[Andrew Stubbs (ams-codesourcery)]

Tests OK. Awaiting review.

[Ramana Radhakrishnan (ramana)]

Andrew,

       This patch is OK to merge but it would be good to know why the MEM_SIZE is really unknown here. Does it have anything to do with the mode in which the RTX is at this point because as Uli says it's void [16]

That's not a good reason to hold up this patch though and sorry about the slightly delayed review.

Ramana