Andy Fiddaman wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
> ;
> ; I didn't like the way that the macro looked in the code, so I just typedef'd
> ; it instead. Here is my current patch. If it works, I'll commit it.
>
> Seems fine, no crashes with my test suite.
>
> Thanks!
>
> (for the o
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
;
; I didn't like the way that the macro looked in the code, so I just typedef'd
; it instead. Here is my current patch. If it works, I'll commit it.
Seems fine, no crashes with my test suite.
Thanks!
(for the other crash bug in the perl XS, would you
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
; Good point. I'm wondering if we need the struct at all, and can just use a
; union.
You're right, I've just tested the following and it works fine:
#define ALIGNBUF(buf, size) \
union { \
bit64 align8; \
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
; Good point. I'm wondering if we need the struct at all, and can just use a
; union.
You're right, I've just tested the following and it works fine:
#define ALIGNBUF(buf, size) \
union { \
bit64 align8; \
char buf[(size)]
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
> ; This patch tries to force the entire buffer to be aligned, rather than
> ; aligning each 64-bit field individually. Don't know if this will work or
> not.
>
> The concept seems to work fine. There are some other places that
> t
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
; This patch tries to force the entire buffer to be aligned, rather than
; aligning each 64-bit field individually. Don't know if this will work or not.
The concept seems to work fine. There are some other places that
the same trick needs to be done - mai
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
;
; Before I commit your patch, would you be willing to see if the attached
; alternate patch works?
;
; This patch tries to force the entire buffer to be aligned, rather than
; aligning each 64-bit field individually. Don't know if this will work or not
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
; We have been running 2.3.x code on 64-bit sparcv9 kernels (Solaris 8 on Sun
; Fire V240) without any problem. What is your hardware and OS?
The test server is a Sun V210 running
SunOS xxx 5.10 Generic_125100-10 sun4u sparc SUNW,Su
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
; We have been running 2.3.x code on 64-bit sparcv9 kernels (Solaris 8 on Sun
; Fire V240) without any problem. What is your hardware and OS?
The test server is a Sun V210 running
SunOS xxx 5.10 Generic_125100-10 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210
(Solaris 1
ve a stable server as far as I can tell
> (we have a fairly intensive test suite...)
>
> In stock 2.3.9 there are quite a few 64-bit alignment problems which cause
> BUS errors and a problem with the Perl module XS that causes the imclient
> structure to be double freed and there
ow up my own post but I've finished testing cyrus 2.3.9 on
64-bit Solaris SPARC and I now have a stable server as far as I can tell
(we have a fairly intensive test suite...)
In stock 2.3.9 there are quite a few 64-bit alignment problems which cause
BUS errors and a problem with the Perl modu
I'm finally getting around to upgrading my 2.3.7 system to 2.3.9. When I
put in 2.3.7 I had to patch a few things to make it work properly on
64-bit SPARC, mainly unaligned dereferences causing BUS faults due to
the SPARC MMU.
Thankfully 2.3.9 has most of these sorted, mainly through using align_
12 matches
Mail list logo
