Re: powerpc/sparc problems

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 09:21:36PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 05:44 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > They worked perfectly fine for me on a real system with
> > a real compiler and glibc.
> > 
> > If you're going to use cross compilation to test, use
> > a full cross toolset and glibc build not some hacked
> > up uclibc thing.

But we're testing a feature of libgcc, not glibc.

> I have tested the current GRUB on PowerPC.  It's Fedora 11 with a real
> glibc.  I added __ashldi3 to the arguments of AC_CHECK_FUNCS.  The check
> fails.  Yet __ashldi3 is present in libgcc and is exported
> unconditionally.
> 
> The reason is that -nostdlib is added to CFLAGS immediately above 
> AC_CHECK_FUNCS.  -nostdlib disables linking against libgcc.
> 
> I believe the checks for __bswapsi2 __bswapdi2 would fail on sparc64 for
> the same reason.

Then why not just add -lgcc after -nostdlib?

> I'm surprised that my code is being reverted immediately before the
> release and the result is not tested.

I was under the impression that there was consensus that it should be
reverted.  Excuse me for not having tracked this more closely.

Looking at 2631:2632, it seems to me that:

  - Using configure checks is the right way, we just need to make them
    work (I think -lgcc should do it).

  - The ifdef wraps that have been added to sparc64/libgcc.h should also be
    in powerpc/libgcc.h.

>  It's one thing to revert the code
> that has just been committed, and it's entirely different when the code
> has been in the repository for months.

Yes.  There's been a long freeze period during which it'd have been more
appropiate to discuss this kind of things...

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."