On 22.12.2010 08:02, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Le 22/12/2010 01:11, Alexander Holler a écrit : >> 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. > > Yes, and this is enough for me to not want it right away: we caught this > one, but how many others, so far unseen, will creep up? > >> 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). > > Do we need hard floating point in u-boot? IIRC, and unless this changed, > the kernel does not want floating point, so I wonder why u-boot would. > > As for getting 4.5 to work, for the next cycle people can still use pre > 4.5 gccs / toolchains, so this is important but not urgent to the point > of rushing decisions.
Agree. Btw, I tried to send a summary of our issues to the Codesourcery mailing list: http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/arm-gnu/msg03989.html Let's see if we get an answer. Best regards Dirk _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
