Re: xfree86 4.2.1-0pre1v2 (source,alpha,i386,hppa,powerpc,sparc) available at the X Strike Force
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:49:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: As noted on the X Strike Force webpage, I need assistance from ARM and IA-64 porters in identifying and resolving compile-time errors on those platforms. See the URL in my .signature for details. I think the IA64 unaligned functions should be static __inline__ like the other architectures instead of extern __inline__ (otherwise when optimisations are turned off in the debugging build, and those functions are not inlined, they are omitted). Matt --- programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.h.orig 2002-10-02 14:11:40.0 +1000 +++ programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.h 2002-10-02 14:14:44.0 +1000 @@ -379,3 +379,3 @@ -extern __inline__ unsigned long +static __inline__ unsigned long __uldq (const unsigned long * r11) @@ -386,3 +386,3 @@ -extern __inline__ unsigned long +static __inline__ unsigned long __uldl (const unsigned int * r11) @@ -393,3 +393,3 @@ -extern __inline__ unsigned long +static __inline__ unsigned long __uldw (const unsigned short * r11) @@ -400,3 +400,3 @@ -extern __inline__ void +static __inline__ void __ustq (unsigned long r5, unsigned long * r11) @@ -407,3 +407,3 @@ -extern __inline__ void +static __inline__ void __ustl (unsigned long r5, unsigned int * r11) @@ -414,3 +414,3 @@ -extern __inline__ void +static __inline__ void __ustw (unsigned long r5, unsigned short * r11)
Re: xfree86 4.2.1-0pre1v2 (source,alpha,i386,hppa,powerpc,sparc) available at the X Strike Force
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:49:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: As noted on the X Strike Force webpage, I need assistance from ARM and IA-64 porters in identifying and resolving compile-time errors on those platforms. See the URL in my .signature for details. I think the IA64 unaligned functions should be static __inline__ like the other architectures instead of extern __inline__ (otherwise when optimisations are turned off in the debugging build, and those functions are not inlined, they are omitted). Matt --- programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.h.orig 2002-10-02 14:11:40.0 +1000 +++ programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.h 2002-10-02 14:14:44.0 ++1000 @@ -379,3 +379,3 @@ -extern __inline__ unsigned long +static __inline__ unsigned long __uldq (const unsigned long * r11) @@ -386,3 +386,3 @@ -extern __inline__ unsigned long +static __inline__ unsigned long __uldl (const unsigned int * r11) @@ -393,3 +393,3 @@ -extern __inline__ unsigned long +static __inline__ unsigned long __uldw (const unsigned short * r11) @@ -400,3 +400,3 @@ -extern __inline__ void +static __inline__ void __ustq (unsigned long r5, unsigned long * r11) @@ -407,3 +407,3 @@ -extern __inline__ void +static __inline__ void __ustl (unsigned long r5, unsigned int * r11) @@ -414,3 +414,3 @@ -extern __inline__ void +static __inline__ void __ustw (unsigned long r5, unsigned short * r11) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a small C program to test xdm's /dev/mem reading on your architecture
HP rx4610 (4x Itanium), Debian unstable, 2.4.18-itanium-smp Works without problems HP i2000 (Itanium), Debian unstable, 2.4.18-itanium Machine hangs after read #40; works with fragile DEC UDB (Alpha 21066), Debian unstable, 2.4.6 Works without problems I do think that blindly reading /dev/mem is a bad idea though ;) Matt On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 01:20:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: The long story, for those interested: http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2002/debian-x-200208/msg00091.html (and read the whole thread) The short story: I need people with root on machines of your given architecture to compile and run the attached C program. It consists of code borrowed from xdm's genauth.c program. The X Strike Force is trying to determine for which architectures it's a bad idea to read several megabytes of data sequentially from /dev/mem, because this is exactly what XDM currently does when generating an XDM-AUTHORIZATION-1 cookie. Be warned: on at least some architectures (notably IA-64), this sort of read has been known to cause untrapped machine checks (a.k.a., lockups or spontaneous reboots). Arguably the kernel should trap this sort of nonsense, so you may be in the mood to file a bug against kernel after running this program. I and the other folks at the X Strike Force need to know the following things: 1) whether or not this program works when you run it without arguments 2) if scenario 1) causes problems, what the last line of output was 3) if scenario 1) causes problems, whether invoking this program with the argument fragile helps it 4) if scenario 3) causes problems, what the last line of output was Remember, this program must be run as root. If normal users can read from /dev/mem on your machine, you're in trouble. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley
