Message ID | 1473354920-23906-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 09/08/2016 10:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > Three unrelated patches and Pranith's memory barrier patch sets. > > The alignment patch is in support of Sparc's ldf instructions: > 8 and 16-byte memory operations that require only 4-byte alignment. > It's just as easy to support this kind of misalignment as any other. > As mentioned in the commit, we'd also forgotten to properly handle > arm32, mips, ia64 and sparc when it came to overalignment. > > I have a follow up patch set to make use of this for target-sparc. > > I've tweaked the memory barrier patch set. For aarch64, ppc > and sparc, I've fixed the insn selection a bit. I merged the > optimization pass into the current optimization pass. Ho hum. I think I've mucked something up here too. Please ignore this pull. r~
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote: > On 09/08/2016 10:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> >> Three unrelated patches and Pranith's memory barrier patch sets. >> >> The alignment patch is in support of Sparc's ldf instructions: >> 8 and 16-byte memory operations that require only 4-byte alignment. >> It's just as easy to support this kind of misalignment as any other. >> As mentioned in the commit, we'd also forgotten to properly handle >> arm32, mips, ia64 and sparc when it came to overalignment. >> >> I have a follow up patch set to make use of this for target-sparc. >> >> I've tweaked the memory barrier patch set. For aarch64, ppc >> and sparc, I've fixed the insn selection a bit. I merged the >> optimization pass into the current optimization pass. > > > Ho hum. I think I've mucked something up here too. > Please ignore this pull. > I think I found the error. It looks like the fence optimization patch is causing the error. I will reply in that patch. -- Pranith
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani+qemu@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 09/08/2016 10:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> Ho hum. I think I've mucked something up here too. >> Please ignore this pull. >> > > I think I found the error. It looks like the fence optimization patch > is causing the error. > > I will reply in that patch. > Hmmm, looking closer, the optimization patch looks fine. What error are you seeing? -- Pranith
On 09/08/2016 05:06 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> What error are you seeing?
Something else entirely.
My alpha kernel is crashing. I thought it was something in this patch set,
after I rebased, but now I can see it's in HEAD too. I'll have to spend some
time tracking it down.
r~
On 09/08/2016 11:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/08/2016 05:06 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> What error are you seeing? > > Something else entirely. > > My alpha kernel is crashing. I thought it was something in this patch set, > after I rebased, but now I can see it's in HEAD too. I'll have to spend some > time tracking it down. Well, the best I can figure, we've got a missing dependency in the makefiles somewhere. Which, does explain the segv backtrace that made no sense. I can't imagine what is wrong with the makefile, seeing as I used "make clean" from time to time in order to drop optimization from cflags. But I built quite a lot of git versions, all of which failed until I deleted the build directory. After that, everything works. Ho hum. I'll set up another pull request. r~