On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:14:04AM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:45 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:10:54PM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> > > Right. That's what I was trying to say (apparently not so well :). The
> > > 0x10100000000 address is the end of the BSS padding. I expected it to be
> > > at 0x20000000000 because I added a second ALIGN statement. But your
> > > statements below (regarding overcommit) make me wonder if ld
> > > intentionally limits the amount of padding we can do.
> >
> > Uh.. that seems very unlikely. I could imagine ld choking on
> > too-large segments, but not silently truncating the padding. Can you
> > send a full copy of your modified script that we're discussing - I
> > think we've only seen fragments in the thread to date. Could it be
> > something as simple as a typo in the number of zeroes in your ALIGN?
>
> Here's the script I'm using. There's just two lines different from the
> current version.
Sorry for the delay, I've been preoccupied with other things.
Not that I have much useful to say - indeed I can't see why this
would be aligning only to 4GB boundary, not a 1TB boundary. I guess
it's possible it's a linker bug (maybe try a few different linker
versions, if possible).
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
