[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4874FDD6.8060402@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:05:10 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Mike Travis wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Did the suspected linker bug issue ever get resolved?
>>>
>>> -hpa
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I was not able to figure out how the two versions of the same
>> kernel compiled by gcc-4.2.0 and gcc-4.2.4 differed. Currently,
>> I'm sticking with gcc-4.2.4 as it boots much farther.
>>
>> There still is a problem where if I bump THREAD_ORDER, the
>> problem goes away and everything so far that I've tested boots
>> up fine.
>>
>> We tried to install a later gcc (4.3.1) that might have the
>> "GCC_HAS_SP" flag but our sys admin reported:
>>
>> The 4.3.1 version gives me errors on the make. I had to
>> pre-install gmp and mpfr, but, I still get errors on the make.
>>
>> I think that was the latest he found on the GNU/GCC site.
>>
>
> We have seen miscompilations with gcc 4.3.0 at least; not sure about 4.3.1.
>
> -hpa
Hmm, I wonder how the CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR was tested? Could it
be a config option for building GCC itself?
Thanks,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists