RE: gcc-3.1 2002-04-03 libjava failures on sparc-linux?

["Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>]

I think this part of the patch should be checked into both the branch and
trunk.  If in parallel someone else could try this on other Linux/SPARC
machines, that would help to verify that the main stack base is always
correctly reported in /proc.  But the current code is very hard to defend,
at least given the fact that it isn't always correct.

If you would like me to check it in, please let me know.

I will hold off on the proposed/conjectured Solaris/64 patch since nobody
has been able to test that.

Hans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Jönsson [mailto:christian@j-son.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:28 AM
> To: Tom Tromey
> Cc: Boehm, Hans; java@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: gcc-3.1 2002-04-03 libjava failures on sparc-linux?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:22:36AM +0200, chj wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:08:45AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > >>>>> "ChJ" == Christian Jönsson 
> <c.christian.joensson@telia.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > ChJ> I applied it to Hans et als. gc6.1alpha4 sources, it seems to
> > > ChJ> work there.
> > > 
> > > Great.
> > > 
> > > ChJ> So Hans, what do we do now? Incorporate your patch 
> into the gcc
> > > ChJ> 3.1 branch and trunk? Test it first in gc6.1alpha5?
> > > 
> > > As I understand it, you couldn't apply this patch to the 
> GC currently
> > > in the gcc tree, right?  Could you modify the patch so it applies
> > > (apply it by hand somehow) and then test that version of the GC?
> > > 
> > > If that works, we will definitely check it in.
> > 
> > I have used the attached patch (based on Hans' first 
> suggested patch).
> 
> ehrm, here it is:
> 
> *** include/private/gcconfig.h.orig	Tue Apr 16 19:08:52 2002
> --- include/private/gcconfig.h	Tue Apr 16 19:14:08 2002
> ***************
> *** 820,830 ****
>         extern int _etext[];
>   #     define DATAEND (_end)
>   #     define SVR4
>   #     ifdef __arch64__
> - #       define STACKBOTTOM ((ptr_t) 0x80000000000ULL)
>   #	define DATASTART (ptr_t)GC_SysVGetDataStart(0x100000, _etext)
>   #     else
> - #       define STACKBOTTOM ((ptr_t) 0xf0000000)
>   #	define DATASTART (ptr_t)GC_SysVGetDataStart(0x10000, _etext)
>   #     endif
>   #   endif
> --- 820,829 ----
>         extern int _etext[];
>   #     define DATAEND (_end)
>   #     define SVR4
> + #     define LINUX_STACKBOTTOM
>   #     ifdef __arch64__
>   #	define DATASTART (ptr_t)GC_SysVGetDataStart(0x100000, _etext)
>   #     else
>   #	define DATASTART (ptr_t)GC_SysVGetDataStart(0x10000, _etext)
>   #     endif
>   #   endif
> 
> 
> > The results are good (however, I happened to throw an an additional
> > --enable-threads that I know cause troubles on sparc32/linux). 
> > 
> > I'd say the proposed patch works for sparc32, and I know Hans has
> > a proposed patch for "all" sparc targets that I hope is in 
> the process
> > of being tested by folks having those arch available.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> /ChJ
>