[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#762390: Patch for hppa arch



On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:53:39PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> Package: linux
> Version: 3.16.3-2
> Severity: bug
> Tags: patch
> 
> Dear Debian Kernel maintainers,
> 
> could you please temporarily add this hppa-specific patch to the debian
> kernel sources?
> 
> Currently the 64bit hppa kernel gets miscompiled by gcc-4.8 and as such
> it will not boot.
> 
> The attached patch fixes one of the problems. Latest changes in gcc-4.8
> made changes to the -mfast-indirect-calls option which now produces wrong code
> when compiling for 64bit. The problem is being worked on in upstream gcc-4.8,
> and we don't know yet if we will implement -mfast-indirect-calls for 64bit
> (which might introduce side-effects) or not. That's the reason why I don't want
> to push attached patch upstream yet.
> 
> The second problem is, that gcc-4.9 (which is used in debian to bootstrap gcc-4.8)
> miscompiles one specific gcc-4.8 source code path and this bug is reported upstream in
> GCC PR:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
> We work on that too.
> 
> So, if you could apply the attached patch temporarily for now it would help us
> to get further. I will either send the patch upstream or we will fix the compiler.
> The decision is still pending, but I will inform you when this patch can be removed
> from debian kernel sources again (hopefully soon!).
> 
> BTW: If you apply it, there is no need to trigger a new upload specifically for this bug/hppa...
> 
> Thanks,
> Helge

> diff --git a/arch/parisc/Makefile b/arch/parisc/Makefile
> index 7187664..5db8882 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/parisc/Makefile
> @@ -48,7 +48,12 @@ cflags-y	:= -pipe
>  
>  # These flags should be implied by an hppa-linux configuration, but they
>  # are not in gcc 3.2.
> -cflags-y	+= -mno-space-regs -mfast-indirect-calls
> +cflags-y	+= -mno-space-regs
> +
> +# -mfast-indirect-calls is only relevant for 32-bit kernels.
Would it make sense to point out here that -mfast-indirect-calls is not
only unneeded but bad until http://link.to/relevant-discussion is
resolved?

> +ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> +cflags-y	+= -mfast-indirect-calls
> +endif
>  
Best regards
Uwe


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |


Reply to: