Kernel 2.6.20.4 Unaligned address
[1] kernel errors reporting unaligned access of memory [2] The following two lines iterate twice a piece, about once every 2 minutes: Kernel unaligned access at TPC[79c344] arpt_do_table+0x3cc/0x640 Kernel unaligned access at TPC[79c33c] arpt_do_table+0x3c4/0x640 [3] ... [4] Linux version 2.6.20.4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)) #3 Fri Apr 6 18:08:28 PDT 2007 [7] This is running on a Netra t1 105 (sparc) /proc/cpu: cpu : TI UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) fpu : UltraSparc IIi integrated FPU prom: OBP 3.10.27 2000/06/22 16:45 type: sun4u ncpus probed: 1 ncpus active: 1 D$ parity tl1 : 0 I$ parity tl1 : 0 Cpu0Bogo: 880.43 Cpu0ClkTck : 1a3a605f MMU Type: Spitfire I can attach my .config if necessary, but don't want to clutter this email with any unnecessary data. -brandon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Kernel 2.6.20.4 Unaligned address
[1] kernel errors reporting unaligned access of memory [2] The following two lines iterate twice a piece, about once every 2 minutes: Kernel unaligned access at TPC[79c344] arpt_do_table+0x3cc/0x640 Kernel unaligned access at TPC[79c33c] arpt_do_table+0x3c4/0x640 [3] ... [4] Linux version 2.6.20.4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)) #3 Fri Apr 6 18:08:28 PDT 2007 [7] This is running on a Netra t1 105 (sparc) /proc/cpu: cpu : TI UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) fpu : UltraSparc IIi integrated FPU prom: OBP 3.10.27 2000/06/22 16:45 type: sun4u ncpus probed: 1 ncpus active: 1 D$ parity tl1 : 0 I$ parity tl1 : 0 Cpu0Bogo: 880.43 Cpu0ClkTck : 1a3a605f MMU Type: Spitfire I can attach my .config if necessary, but don't want to clutter this email with any unnecessary data. -brandon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: About Celeron processor memory barrier problem
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001224 16:27]: > One thing we _could_ potentially do is to simplify the CPU selection a > bit, and make it a two-stage process. Basically have a > > bool "Optimize for current CPU" CONFIG_CPU_CURRENT > > which most people who just want to get the best kernel would use. Less > confusion that way. Good Lord, YES! And while we're at it, how about a: "Build into kernel every module for hardware I have..." That'd make a 'make config' one line (I'll go back to dreaming) Ciao! -- Excusing bad programming is a shooting offence, no matter _what_ the circumstances. -- Linus Torvalds (linux-kernel mailing list) The Doctor What: Not that 'who' guy http://docwhat.gerf.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] KF6VNC - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: About Celeron processor memory barrier problem
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001224 16:27]: One thing we _could_ potentially do is to simplify the CPU selection a bit, and make it a two-stage process. Basically have a bool "Optimize for current CPU" CONFIG_CPU_CURRENT which most people who just want to get the best kernel would use. Less confusion that way. Good Lord, YES! And while we're at it, how about a: "Build into kernel every module for hardware I have..." That'd make a 'make config' one line (I'll go back to dreaming) Ciao! -- Excusing bad programming is a shooting offence, no matter _what_ the circumstances. -- Linus Torvalds (linux-kernel mailing list) The Doctor What: Not that 'who' guy http://docwhat.gerf.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] KF6VNC - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?
Larry McVoy said ... > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: > > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been > > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error > > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the > > big deal? > > [Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please] (kettle calling pot black) Look at your own signature line, Larry :-) > I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for > my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on > any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha. So your sole basis for disliking 2.95 is that the *compiler* is slower?? Not the code it generates, not the error messages it spits out or the strictness (or lack there of) of type inforcement?? Just the speed?? Hmm... well, I guess everyone's gotta have something to hate... All right, then just what *is* a good version to use? No, better yet, what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these versions aren't good to start from, what versions are and where can I find them? > --- > Larry McVoylm at bitmover.com >http://www.bitmover.com/lm -- Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?
Larry McVoy said ... On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big deal? [Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please] (kettle calling pot black) Look at your own signature line, Larry :-) I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha. So your sole basis for disliking 2.95 is that the *compiler* is slower?? Not the code it generates, not the error messages it spits out or the strictness (or lack there of) of type inforcement?? Just the speed?? Hmm... well, I guess everyone's gotta have something to hate... All right, then just what *is* a good version to use? No, better yet, what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these versions aren't good to start from, what versions are and where can I find them? --- Larry McVoylm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm -- Peter A. Castro [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
