On 06/06/2012 03:55 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 03:53 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 03:41 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2012 03:25 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>> On 06/06/2012 03:18 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On 06/06/2012 02:28 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/06/2012 11:48 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/06/2012 11:18 AM, ali hagigat wrote:
>>>>>>>> Much appreciate for the reply, Mr. Gerum. Here is the result of ldd
>>>>>>>> command:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai-help/2011-12/msg00012.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alternatively, this patch may work as well (not tested, but this
>>>>>> looks like a former issue we had with aggressive optimizers):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/src/skins/posix/init.c b/src/skins/posix/init.c
>>>>>> index 7a338a0..9c7849e 100644
>>>>>> --- a/src/skins/posix/init.c
>>>>>> +++ b/src/skins/posix/init.c
>>>>>> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ void pse51_clock_init(int);
>>>>>> static __attribute__ ((constructor))
>>>>>> void __init_posix_interface(void)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> + volatile pthread_t tid = pthread_self();
>>>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_XENO_LIBS_DLOPEN
>>>>>> struct sched_param parm;
>>>>>> int policy;
>>>>>> @@ -80,14 +81,14 @@ void __init_posix_interface(void)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Don't use auto-shadowing if we are likely invoked from
>>>>>> dlopen. */
>>>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_XENO_LIBS_DLOPEN
>>>>>> - err =
>>>>>> __real_pthread_getschedparam(pthread_self(),&policy,&parm);
>>>>>> + err = __real_pthread_getschedparam(tid,&policy,&parm);
>>>>>> if (err) {
>>>>>> fprintf(stderr, "Xenomai Posix skin init: "
>>>>>> "pthread_getschedparam: %s\n", strerror(err));
>>>>>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - err = __wrap_pthread_setschedparam(pthread_self(),
>>>>>> policy,&parm);
>>>>>> + err = __wrap_pthread_setschedparam(tid, policy,&parm);
>>>>>> if (err) {
>>>>>> fprintf(stderr, "Xenomai Posix skin init: "
>>>>>> "pthread_setschedparam: %s\n", strerror(err));
>>>>>
>>>>> There should not be any issue here, as the pthread_self() is passed as
>>>>> an argument to the called functions, the syscall is not inlined directly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you get any disassembly of the faulty code when suggesting
>>>> -fno-omit-frame-pointer last time you did?
>>>>
>>> No, but I had experienced the problem first hand.
>>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to know why we have to force a frame pointer in
>> there. I'm not comfortable with voodoo fixing, that bug might bite later
>> on as gcc's optimizer is unlikely to become less aggressive over time.
>>
> Ah this, I know. I have posted a mail where I explained the problem. I
> am a bit in a short schedule here, will post the link tonight.
>
http://xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai-core/2011-08/msg00029.html
--
Gilles.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
Xenomai@xenomai.org
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
