Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-24 Thread Kumar Gala
On Oct 24, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Nate Case wrote: On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 09:02 -0500, Nate Case wrote: With this patch it compiles and boots fine. The option -mabi=no-spe is not required. Please don't accept this patch yet. My past testing showed that "-mabi=no-spe" was required for my toolchain

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-24 Thread Nate Case
On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 09:02 -0500, Nate Case wrote: > > With this patch it compiles and boots fine. > > The option -mabi=no-spe is not required. > > Please don't accept this patch yet. My past testing showed that > "-mabi=no-spe" was required for my toolchain. I'll go back and double > check tho

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-17 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
* Nate Case | 2008-10-17 09:02:11 [-0500]: >On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 16:43 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> With this patch it compiles and boots fine. >> The option -mabi=no-spe is not required. > >Please don't accept this patch yet. My past testing showed that >"-mabi=no-spe" was require

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-17 Thread Nate Case
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 16:43 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > With this patch it compiles and boots fine. > The option -mabi=no-spe is not required. Please don't accept this patch yet. My past testing showed that "-mabi=no-spe" was required for my toolchain. I'll go back and double check

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-15 Thread Kumar Gala
On Oct 15, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: * Kumar Gala | 2008-10-15 08:25:54 [-0500]: On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:59 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2008-10-15 00:49:46 [+0200]: is the -mabi=no-spe really needed? It seems to work the other

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-15 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
* Kumar Gala | 2008-10-15 08:25:54 [-0500]: > > On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:59 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2008-10-15 00:49:46 [+0200]: >> is the -mabi=no-spe really needed? >>> It seems to work the other way around (without -mabi=no-spe but with >>> -mab

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-15 Thread Kumar Gala
On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:59 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2008-10-15 00:49:46 [+0200]: is the -mabi=no-spe really needed? It seems to work the other way around (without -mabi=no-spe but with -mabi=no-spe) alteast I did not find anything in do_syslog() or whi

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-15 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2008-10-15 00:49:46 [+0200]: >>is the -mabi=no-spe really needed? >It seems to work the other way around (without -mabi=no-spe but with >-mabi=no-spe) alteast I did not find anything in do_syslog() or while >browsing through the dissasm. I do a boot check tomorrow. O

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-14 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
* Kumar Gala | 2008-10-14 16:23:05 [-0500]: >>Not sure if this is intendent or a gcc bug but with -mno-spe >>the spe opcodes were not used floating point anymore but >>for 64bit save/restore for instance. > >what code is getting generated for you that is causing issue? Without the patch do_syslog(

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-14 Thread Nate Case
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:23 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > Why does -mno-spe work? > > From my gcc-4.3 info pages: > > `-mspe=YES/NO' > This option has been deprecated. Use `-mspe' and `-mno-spe' > instead. > > > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mabi=no-spe) > > is the -mabi=no-spe

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-14 Thread Nate Case
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:25 -0500, Nate Case wrote: > > -mno-spe: Deprecated way to say "no SPE instructions" > -mspe=no: New way to do -mno-spe Sorry, I got this backwards (as Kumar pointed out in his other reply). -mspe=no is actually deprecated. - Nate Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-14 Thread Kumar Gala
On Sep 1, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Sebastian Siewior wrote: From: Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> those two are requried on my fresh gcc 4.3.1 Signed-off-by: Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Not sure if this is intendent or a gcc bug but wi

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-10-14 Thread Nate Case
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 16:23 +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote: > those two are requried on my fresh gcc 4.3.1 > > Signed-off-by: Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > Not sure if this is intendent or a gcc bug but with -mno-spe > the spe opco

[PATCH] powerpc: enforce a non-spe kernel build even on broken compilers

2008-09-01 Thread Sebastian Siewior
From: Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> those two are requried on my fresh gcc 4.3.1 Signed-off-by: Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Not sure if this is intendent or a gcc bug but with -mno-spe the spe opcodes were not used floating point