Am 21.12.2010 21:04, schrieb Dirk Behme: > On 21.12.2010 20:52, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Albert& friends, >> >> what is your opinion? Should we include the memory barrier patch into >> the upcoming release (and eventually delay it for further testing), or >> release as is and solve this issue in the next release? >> >> I tend to leave it as is, as I expect that most people will disappear >> in the next few days for holidays, so no much testing will be done >> anyway, and we then can solve this with less pressure in the next >> release - but I'm not really sure if this is a good idea? > > I somehow tend to leave it as is, too. > > We have issues with some recent compilers. For these we found a fix > using the io.h somehow the same way the Linux kernel does. But this > introduces new issues for us, we haven't found a proper fix yet > (except changing the code to the 'old' io.h style). But we don't know > where we might have this issue additionally, yet.
The only real problem found with that patch was one with a register which doesn't like an (unmotivated) read after write. On the other side, without that patch, using gcc >= 4.5.x (at least on arm) proved to fail. In contrast to that problem of gcc 4.5.x ignoring that volatile, 4.5.x still fixes many bugs for arm and gcc >= 4.5.x is necessary for hardfloat. So it's likely that more people will start using 4.5.x (4.5.2 was just released). Regards, Alexander _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot