This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Regression] d96ac6f2: time: Revert ALWAYS_USE_PERSISTENT_CLOCK compile time optimizaitons
- From: Jens Taprogge <jens dot taprogge at taprogge dot org>
- To: John Stultz <john dot stultz at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Kay Sievers <kay at vrfy dot org>, Feng Tang <feng dot tang at intel dot com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch dot com>, ThomasGleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation dot org>, stable at vger dot kernel dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:51:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Regression] d96ac6f2: time: Revert ALWAYS_USE_PERSISTENT_CLOCK compile time optimizaitons
- References: <20130529204119 dot GA3976 at weetamoe dot luzern dot taprogge dot wh> <51A6A682 dot 40303 at linaro dot org> <20130531010200 dot GA1385 at weetamoe dot luzern dot taprogge dot wh> <20130531120615 dot GA1442 at weetamoe dot luzern dot taprogge dot wh> <51A912C7 dot 8090500 at linaro dot org> <20130531234242 dot GA1235 at weetamoe dot luzern dot taprogge dot wh> <51A93D71 dot 30804 at linaro dot org> <20130601153705 dot GA1233 at weetamoe dot luzern dot taprogge dot wh> <20130601184519 dot GA2349 at weetamoe dot luzern dot taprogge dot wh> <51ACDB76 dot 8000808 at linaro dot org>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:07:50AM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 11:45 AM, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 05:37:05PM +0200, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> >>On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 05:16:49PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>On 05/31/2013 04:42 PM, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:14:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ok. None of this is yet making any sense to me. (And I worry
> >>>>>enumerating all the mix and match of configs that work or don't only
> >>>>>blurs the issues).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Few base questions:
> >>>>>1) What distro is this on?
> >>>>arch linux
> >>>>
> >>>>>2) What gcc version are you using?
> >>>>gcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20130502 (prerelease)
> >>>(Sorry, I'm not very familiar with arch) Are you able to also
> >>>install a 4.7 gcc in parallel to try to build with?
> >>>
> >>>If so, you might want to try that. Your results are just weird
> >>>enough I want to just be sure we're not chasing compiler caused
> >>>ghosts.
> >>I will compile gcc4.6 and see if using that makes any difference.
> >I have compiled two of the broken configurations with gcc-4.6 and both
> >boot up. I am not sure how to proceed from here.
>
> Ok. That at least helps make me feel better that I'm not just crazy.
>
> First thing, I'd probably file a bug against the Arch gcc 4.8
> package, just in case there's any out-of-tree changes there.
>
> I've also added the gcc mailing list to the thread to see if someone
> there can help narrow down what might be going wrong.
Hello John, sorry for the delay. I was able to do some more testing.
At first it seemed that things were working with gcc 4.8.1 (arch
upgraded). However when I switched to Linux 3.9.5 I hit the same
problems again. The config options are different. Some configs that
worked with 3.9.4 broke, some that did not work boot now.
I have seen boot failure with kernels compiled using gcc 4.6 as well.
I will have to check which configuration that was.
Since the arch package is unpatched I suspect, this is not an arch
issue: https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/gcc
I find it quite strange that I was unable to find reports of problems
similar to mine on the web. Perhaps it is a firmware issue?! I have
don't know much about the UEFI boot process. Perhaps the firmware
expects some address to be alignment in a certain way?
Best Regards,
Jens