Re: m68k FPU emulation: Unimplemented instruction

Thorsten Glaser writes: > Ingo Jürgensmann dixit: > > > echo line to know which module is currently compiled) you might find the > > module > > in question that generates that FPU error and investigate further then. > > It’s not an error. Python (rightfully) runs some FPU instruction, >

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#719484: boost1.54: FTBFS

Thorsten Glaser writes: > Steve M. Robbins dixit: > > >Interesting, but this is an entirely different bug. Also, this new bug is > >in > >gcc, not boost. > > Sorry, right. I’m just amazed that the boost compilation is > still continuing, and replied to the mail “thread” we already > h

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#719484: boost1.54: FTBFS

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 07:21:40 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Steve M. Robbins dixit: > > >Interesting, but this is an entirely different bug. Also, this new bug is= > in=20 > >gcc, not boost. > > Sorry, right. I=E2=80=99m just amazed that the boost compilation is > still continuing, and r

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 14:39:32 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >Sure, you can find three attrtab speedup patches I've backported from > >gcc-4.8/trunk to gcc-4.6.3 in: > >. > > Oh, you're great, thanks! > > All of the

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:33:06 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Mikael Pettersson dixit: > > >and with two patches to reduce 'genattrtab' overheads; with all > > I think I asked already, but again, pretty please, care to share? ;-) Sure, you can find three

Re: ARAnyM VMs with Debian hanging at 100% CPU usage

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:13:49 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Geert Uytterhoeven dixit: > > >If I'm not mistaken, the warning was just a false positive, so I didn't > >submit > >the fix for stable? > > Was it just the warning issued, or was there really something > wrong with interrupt hand

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:14:39 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Mikael Pettersson dixit: > > >- having a vsyscall page at a fixed location (vdso is too horrible), and > >- updating a long word in it in each switch_to() > > sounds ok to me > > >-

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:29:49 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >OTOH, if CAS is provably unsafe in user-space for a sizeable portion > >of the Linux/m68k HW base, then the kernel should IMO provide a > >vsyscall page with at least CAS and DCAS/CAS64 entry points (doing > > And TLS! > > So w

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:48:02 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Geert Uytterhoeven dixit: > > > >>Even if they're fixed on ARAnyM, this doesn't fix the CAS problems on sev= > eral > >>instantations of real hardware > > > > Right. T

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:14:03 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Mikael Pettersson dixit: > > >Now we know that aranym had a broken > >CAS emulation :-( > > Those problems are gone now though? I hope so. I've updated my previous sync implementations for m68k

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:37:52 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Mikael Pettersson dixit: > > >As I mentioned before you need to replace the libgcc_s.so symlink > >with a linker script. Several gcc targets (at least powerpc, sh, > >hppa, and arm) do so already beca

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:13:03 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > /usr/bin/ld: nouveau_dri.so.test: hidden symbol `__sync_sub_and_fetch_4' in= > /usr/lib/gcc/m68k-linux-gnu/4.6/libgcc.a(linux-atomic.o) is referenced by = > DSO > /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value > collect2: ld returned

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:40:40 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Mikael Pettersson dixit: > > >That could work. > > Does anyone have got a test programme for the atomic builtins, > which could ideally test their behaviour at runtime too, if there > is a way to get it

Re: About gcc builtin atomics

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:42:29 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Hi, > > I was just randomly wondering whether it might still be possible > to add __sync_* support to gcc-4.6 - earlier I've had a look at > the relevant commits, and they depend on deep changes to the > machine-independent code

Re: [erlang-questions] Erlang in Debian on m68k architecture

Sergei Golovan writes: > On 1/25/07, Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem is still one of alignment. It seems that your M68K > > toolchain doesn't align > > > > struct { int x; } var; > > > > to a 32-bit boundary.

Re: [erlang-questions] Erlang in Debian on m68k architecture

Sergei Golovan writes: > On 1/25/07, Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Definitely smells like a toolchain bug to me. In this case, since you've > > enabled threads, erts_mtx_t is a properly declared struct type containing > > among other things

Re: [erlang-questions] Erlang in Debian on m68k architecture

Sergei Golovan writes: > Hi! > > As one can see, erlang Debian package (R11B-2 relese, 11.b.2 in Debian > versioning) fails to build on m68k now > (http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=erlang&ver=1%3A11.b.2-4&arch=m68k&stamp=1167824208&file=log). > > After some research, we've found tha