On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 16:28 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 30.09.2007 um 15:27 schrieb J. Mayer: > > > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 15:08 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Am 30.09.2007 um 14:17 schrieb J. Mayer: > >>> Would this new definition solve the compilation failure ? > >>> > >>> #ifndef always_inline > >>> #if (__GNUC__ < 3) || defined(__APPLE__) > >>> #define always_inline inline > >>> #else > >>> #define always_inline __attribute__ (( always_inline )) inline > >>> #endif > >>> #endif > >> > >> It does. > > > > OK, then I will commit this fixup, even if it may generate slower code > > for interrupt processing (which is already something slow...). > > Well, slower compared to Linux certainly, but there's no fancy > acceleration anyway. I consider working+slow better than not working > at all.
I fully agree... > If someone has a speedup idea for the __APPLE__ case, that could > still be applied separately. I guess there are some already defined macros in the Apple build environmnet that should be used instead. But I don't know too much about this environment... The slowdown is really not an issue in that particular case. > > the alias attribute is used to define a new function name that > > actually > > refer to another existant function, this to avoid code duplication. We > > can easily avoid using it using an inline function for the actual > > implementation and calling it from different places. Please take a > > look > > at this patch. > > Patch looks okay to me and compiles. Again, I have no idea about the > implications and any performance impact. It has no performance impact, it just duplicates one (small) function in the generated object, which will not have any impact. > Either way, if I run "qemu-system-ppc -boot d -cdrom debian-40r0- > powerpc-DVD-1.iso" this is what I get: > > starting qemu... > qemu: fatal: Unable to find PowerPC CPU definition > > NIP fffffffc LR 00000000 CTR 00000000 > Bus error > I haven't used it in a while; as reported earlier, it didn't really > work back then either, but it worked "more", i.e. started to boot. > But this is with or without the patch, so unrelated - just saying I > can't confirm that this patch works 100%. OK, just checked and I have this problem too. Will fix it as soon as I can. In between, you can just try to force the CPU, adding '-cpu 750' or '-cpu 604' to your command line. Thanks for this report ! Regards. -- J. Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Never organized
