From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264044AbTDJOHy (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:07:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264045AbTDJOHy (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:07:54 -0400 Received: from griffon.mipsys.com ([217.167.51.129]:37350 "EHLO zion.wanadoo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264044AbTDJOHx (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:07:53 -0400 Subject: Re: gcc-2.95 broken on PPC? From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: mikpe@csd.uu.se Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200304101256.h3ACuSw3022796@harpo.it.uu.se> References: <200304101256.h3ACuSw3022796@harpo.it.uu.se> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1049984455.555.83.camel@zion.wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Date: 10 Apr 2003 16:20:55 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 14:56, mikpe@csd.uu.se wrote: > However, bugs #1 (zlib.c) and #3 (div64.h) disappear if I compile > my kernels with gcc-3.2.2 instead of 2.95.4, which is a strong > indication that 2.95.4 is broken on PPC. Is this something that's > well-known to PPC people? > > The patches are included below for reference. It would be interesting to see the section dumps of the resulting coff image and compare the version that works and the one that doesn't. I still suspect some alignement crap, seeing this may eventually show it. Ben.