Re: SIGSEGV information on SPARC64

From: "jiaqi zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:34:22 +1200 > Do you mean retrieving the instruction from tpc in sigcontext? Yep. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://v

Re: SIGSEGV information on SPARC64

Do you mean retrieving the instruction from tpc in sigcontext? Thanks a lot. I'll try it. On 8/7/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "jiaqi zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:41:18 +1200 > > > While I could find the faultive address in siginfo_t, it seems there >

Re: SIGSEGV information on SPARC64

From: "jiaqi zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:41:18 +1200 > While I could find the faultive address in siginfo_t, it seems there > is no way to find the access type(read or write) in it. Disassemble the instruction and see if it is a load or a store. Even if the information is

SIGSEGV information on SPARC64

Hello everyone, I'm working on a project that needs to deal with SIGSEGV on SPARC64. While I could find the faultive address in siginfo_t, it seems there is no way to find the access type(read or write) in it. I tracked the kernel source and found that ther kernel retrieves this information (fault

GCC 4.2.1 produces broken 2.6.22.1 kernel.

Andrew Walrond wrote: > > I've got a horrible feeling I've just spent a day fighting against a > miscompilation by gcc-4.2. > > Perhaps this is a known problem? I'm rebuilding with gcc-4.1.2 now and > will report back shortly > Confirmed; GCC 4.2.1 (vanilla) produces a broken 2.6.22.1 kerne

Help understanding SPARC32 Sun4c PTE handling

Hi David, If you have the time ..., if not, hopfully, some one from linux-mm will explain. I have been investigating the differences between SunOS PTE and Linux PTE bits. There are some differences that I would like to understand. What is the pte_file() function intended for. The bit in the

Re: Sparc-2.6.24 GIT tree

David Miller wrote: > > I use arch/sparc64/defconfig, enable CONFIG_FUSION* and CONFIG_SMP, > works fine on all my Niagara boxes. > - What compiler version do you use? I've got a horrible feeling I've just spent a day fighting against a miscompilation by gcc-4.2. Perhaps this is a known problem

Re: Sparc-2.6.24 GIT tree

David Miller wrote: > > I use arch/sparc64/defconfig, enable CONFIG_FUSION* and CONFIG_SMP, > works fine on all my Niagara boxes. Do these warnings matter? v2.6.22.1 $ make image CHK include/linux/version.h CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h CALLscripts/checksyscalls.sh CHK

Re: Sparc-2.6.24 GIT tree

BTW, please report this kind of failure as soon as you see it, not 2 releases later which makes it infinitely harder to track down the cause of the problem. Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo

Re: Sparc-2.6.24 GIT tree

From: Andrew Walrond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:38:22 +0100 > Or, if 2.6.22.1 should boot fine on a T1000, perhaps someone could mail > me a known good .config that I could use as a base? I use arch/sparc64/defconfig, enable CONFIG_FUSION* and CONFIG_SMP, works fine on all my N

Re: Sparc-2.6.24 GIT tree

David Miller wrote: > I cut a 2.6.24 sparc development tree at: > > kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc-2.6.24.git > > merely because I wanted to dump some framebuffer driver changes > out of my inbox that were not appropriate for 2.6.23 > I've been trying to upgrade the 2.6.