linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc

To: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc
From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:28:47 +0000
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Linux MIPS List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:mail-followup-to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=7RzWmHt4t1T/7c+OCBTtW7T4uzHKnmxiS0OqTCBwp1A=; b=g735Xl+zhtRf331eoISES3KT5IfStaDGKLA8coiNmXs7TIa4xM+wiaZQ1YcLm8s4Qy epk48jX0RsxS3Goy3RQOfyEOzQwXs5QlngHZntuWEnf7B5nGiZ9v55nUg/aJwBRVJAf0 uXwSDmqLqWmkM7L1wuAs8yLnj1UGFNZ7Xot9c=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:mail-followup-to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=j6kLUsv6h028Mt6fwkVNvGkUEs3IltyHKvgHiAHy+g/Xonq2kpAK7lfUNQ0q006eMb wKUiAIKJ4bG3ClEWTlwH0M9pgghvd9BWm1YLMsR9Zv6nGYGlnFbpDCNI889vcpbFbH+u CAuufcECGtM2kpU8K77xEFviIBbVnRsSuOfA4=
In-reply-to: <87y6zphn5b.fsf@firetop.home> (Richard Sandiford's message of "Tue\, 11 Nov 2008 23\:13\:20 +0000")
Mail-followup-to: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Linux MIPS List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, rdsandiford@googlemail.com
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <490A90F4.6040601@gentoo.org> <490C05A9.9070707@gentoo.org> <87abcjibsl.fsf@firetop.home> <490CA4C8.40904@gentoo.org> <87tzargrn4.fsf@firetop.home> <490CEDB9.6030600@gentoo.org> <87prleh2hc.fsf@firetop.home> <490EBDE2.6010709@gentoo.org> <87myggilk2.fsf@firetop.home> <490FF63A.7010900@gentoo.org> <8763mypnhf.fsf@firetop.home> <4917D01B.8080508@gentoo.org> <87y6zphn5b.fsf@firetop.home>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)
Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> writes:
> For avoidance of doubt, I suppose the first thing to ask is: do you get
> the segfault with the same checkout after you revert your patch?
> It could certainly be transient breakage on trunk, like you say.

Looks like it is: PR38052.

Richard

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>