Re: [PATCH] parisc: futex: Use same lock set as lws calls
On 10/17/2011 2:10 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 11:47 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> The test-fork1 failure is still unexplained and happens intermittently.
>
> I have built a lot of unstable on my rp3440. I think this one causes failures in the thread
> testsuites of perl, python2.7 and glib2.0. These are characterized by tests hanging.
>
> There is another class of failures. They typically cause my rp3440 to crash due
> to cache corruption. The GCC libgomp and libatomic-ops testsuite seem to trigger
> this one. As I have mentioned, it's the libgomp "for" tests that
>>
>> The cancellation issues happen in tst-cancel*.
>>
>> I believe the cancellation issues are toolchain issues and I need to
>> look into them.
> Possibly, this is related to the following bug that I found last week building mpfr-3.1.0:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50691
> A call to __tls_get_addr clobbers first argument of call to mpfr_cache. Don't have a
> fix at the moment, but there is a simple testcase.
>
> On a different subject, I tried to get udev-172-1 working. However, this breaks bootstrap
> due to an invalid argument in a call to inotify_init. It's somewhat timing dependent since
> some kernels will boot if they build enough of /dev before udev messes up. In any case,
> I believe that Guy Martin posted a patch a year or so ago to correct an inconsistency
> between the glibc and the kernel for some bit definitions. I'm thinking this may fix the
> udev problem.
What patch is this? I don't remember it. URL?
> It appears that this change got lost and didn't make it into the debian glibc patch set.
> Was a consensus reached on how to fix this inconsistency?
>
> I plan on seeing if I can resolve the GCC mpfr bug, then I want to rebuild glibc with
> the flag bits fixed.
>
> I also found a GCC ICE compiling udev-172-1 with gcc-4.4. Gcc-4.5 and gcc-4.6 seem
> ok.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Reply to: