From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265836AbTF3KvY (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:51:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265832AbTF3KvY (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:51:24 -0400 Received: from angband.namesys.com ([212.16.7.85]:16615 "EHLO angband.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265838AbTF3Kul (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:50:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:00 +0400 From: Oleg Drokin To: Ivan Kokshaysky Cc: "T. Weyergraf" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.73 on alpha/smp build failure Message-ID: <20030630110500.GA29672@namesys.com> References: <20030628133818.GA6073@namesys.com> <20030629155616.B694@pls.park.msu.ru> <20030630054259.GC17466@namesys.com> <20030630145243.A22506@jurassic.park.msu.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030630145243.A22506@jurassic.park.msu.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:43PM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > > See attached assembly generated by cross compiler vs native compiler. > Code generated by gcc-2.95 is obviously bogus. Which is not surprising - > 2.95 is known to be broken for 32-bit host -> 64-bit target > cross-compilation. Try something more recent. ;-) Sigh. So I suddenly succeed in building cross gcc-3.3 that works correctly with my simple test (for some reason it needed to disable dynamic libgcc build before I was able to get at least something working). And now guess what? I get "bad kernel unaligned access ..." message at the point where sda's partition table would get normally printed. The first address printed is somewhere near end of __make_request, the second address is prior to the kernel start, and two last numbers are "22 31". If I disable SCSI completely, it even boots and works which is of course a great progress over what I had with gcc-2.95 (it boots off IDE anyway). ;) I will try to get newer binutils on the box itself to see if it will make any difference for the kernel built natively. Bye, Oleg