> On Monday 30 June 2008 11:22:01 Jeff Dike wrote:
> > Uli reported a crash on x86_64 with gcc 4.1.2 with unit-at-a-time
>
> ...
>
> > If that crash does come back, I'd say we should just debug it. It's
> > likely UML implicitly relying on some gcc behavior anyway.
>
> Well, I'm seeing the cra
On Monday 30 June 2008 11:22:01 Jeff Dike wrote:
> Uli reported a crash on x86_64 with gcc 4.1.2 with unit-at-a-time
...
> If that crash does come back, I'd say we should just debug it. It's
> likely UML implicitly relying on some gcc behavior anyway.
Well, I'm seeing the crash in stock 2.6
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:55:31PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> BTW I use gcc 4.1 on FC7 and all is fine, but I have an x86_64 machine,
> is this problem i386 only?
It's been seen on both i386 and x86_64. Initially, it was x86_64. I
couldn't reproduce it here despite having the same environment
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:42:05AM -0700, David Shane Holden wrote:
> Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:30:15AM -0700, David Shane Holden wrote:
> >> I tried to build a UML 2.6.26 kernel on Debian (32-bit) and ran into the
> >> same problem reported here http://marc.info/?t=121011533
Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:30:15AM -0700, David Shane Holden wrote:
>> I tried to build a UML 2.6.26 kernel on Debian (32-bit) and ran into the
>> same problem reported here http://marc.info/?t=12101153352&r=1&w=2.
>
> It's really 2.6.26, and not something from a day or tw
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:30:15AM -0700, David Shane Holden wrote:
> I tried to build a UML 2.6.26 kernel on Debian (32-bit) and ran into the
> same problem reported here http://marc.info/?t=12101153352&r=1&w=2.
It's really 2.6.26, and not something from a day or two earlier? I
fixed the c
I tried to build a UML 2.6.26 kernel on Debian (32-bit) and ran into the
same problem reported here http://marc.info/?t=12101153352&r=1&w=2.
If I use gcc 4.3 everything works fine, but if I use gcc 4.1 or 4.2,
UML crashes on startup. I changed the gcc version check to 0430 and
both 4.1 a
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:37:27PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> This isn't exactly aligned with the comment above.
> Should be -lt 0400, as in 22eecde2f9034764a3fd095eecfa3adfb8ec9a98?
Oops, right.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
--
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:22:01PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:32:43AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> > Note that the crash happened with gcc 4.1.2 and it will get the
> > -fno-unit-at-a-time flag with the proposed patch.
> >
> > That said, this option or the lack of it ough
On Jun. 30, 2008, 19:22 +0300, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:32:43AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> Note that the crash happened with gcc 4.1.2 and it will get the
>> -fno-unit-at-a-time flag with the proposed patch.
>>
>> That said, this option or the lack of it
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:32:43AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> Note that the crash happened with gcc 4.1.2 and it will get the
> -fno-unit-at-a-time flag with the proposed patch.
>
> That said, this option or the lack of it ought not to cause any
> runtime crashes. If it does, I'd feel much more
On Jun. 28, 2008, 16:10 +0300, "Halevy, Benny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri 2008-06-27 19:26, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:50:51PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
>>> -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time,)
>>> +# Disable unit-at-a-time mode
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:50:51PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time,)
> +# Disable unit-at-a-time mode on pre-gcc-4.3 compilers, it makes gcc use
> +# a lot more stack due to the lack of sharing of stacklots:
> +# gcc 4.3.0 needs -funit-at-a-time f
13 matches
Mail list logo
