On 01.01.2011 19:47, Alexander Holler wrote: > Am 01.01.2011 19:25, schrieb Dirk Behme: >> On 01.01.2011 18:52, Alexander Holler wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme: >>>> On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote: >>>>> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions, >>>>> avoid that as done in the kernel. >>>>> >>>>> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a >>>>> bug of >>>>> that >>>>> gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in >>>>> __arch_getl(). >>>>> Anyway, using a definition as in the kernel headers avoids such >>>>> optimizations when >>>>> gcc 4.5.1 is used. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe the headers as used in the current linux-kernel should be >>>>> used, >>>>> but to avoid large changes, I've just added a small change to the >>>>> current headers. >>> >>>> Do you like to test the patch in the attachment? I named it 'v4'. >>>> >>>> After some thinking and testing, it seems to me that the volatile >>>> optimization issue this patch shall fix is only with the readx() >>>> macros. >>>> So the idea is to drop all writex() changes done in the v3 version of >>>> this patch. With dropping the writex() changes, we would drop all >>>> issues >>>> we discussed with e.g. the GCC statement-expression and the do while >>>> workaround, too. >>> >>> I've come across a bug which reads as the problem might be fixed in >>> gcc 4.5.2: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45052 >>> >>> I will test gcc 4.5.2 in the next days. >> >> Have you been able to test v4 of the patch I sent with gcc 4.5.1? > > No, sorry, I don't have a test case for consequent write* and I will > have to write one.
? If I remember correctly, the test case for this patch was compiling U-Boot with 4.5.1 and then check a) if it boots at Beagle (correct clock.c) b) if NAND works ok (correct omap_gpmc.c) ? Thanks Dirk _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
