* Re: Paravirt compile failure with gcc33
@ 2010-02-10 18:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2010-02-10 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, virtualization, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
H. Peter Anvin
On 02/10/2010 10:13 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> As I was compile-testing 2.6.33-rc with gcc-3.3,
> binutils-2.19.51-10.26.4.x86_64, I observed a failure when
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is turned on:
>
Yeah, there's a gcc bug of some kind there, and its very hard to see how
to work around it. When we last discussed this, I think we were close
to deciding to obsolete gcc 3.3.
HPA, do you remember?
J
>
> [any file]
> /home/jengelh/code/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h: In function
> `rif_seq_stop':
> /home/jengelh/code/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:763: warning:
> asm operand 5 probably doesn't match constraints
> /home/jengelh/code/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:858: warning:
> asm operand 2 probably doesn't match constraints
> /home/jengelh/code/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:763: error:
> impossible constraint in `asm'
> /home/jengelh/code/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:858: error:
> impossible constraint in `asm'
>
> Disabling either PARAVIRT or using GCC4.x works around this.
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Paravirt compile failure with gcc33
2010-02-10 18:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
(?)
@ 2010-02-10 18:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2010-02-10 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Jan Engelhardt, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, virtualization,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
On 02/10/2010 10:38 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 02/10/2010 10:13 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> As I was compile-testing 2.6.33-rc with gcc-3.3,
>> binutils-2.19.51-10.26.4.x86_64, I observed a failure when
>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is turned on:
>>
>
> Yeah, there's a gcc bug of some kind there, and its very hard to see how
> to work around it. When we last discussed this, I think we were close
> to deciding to obsolete gcc 3.3.
>
> HPA, do you remember?
>
I don't, and the macros are tangled enough that I'm not actually sure
what the failure really is.
-hpa
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Paravirt compile failure with gcc33
2010-02-10 18:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
(?)
(?)
@ 2010-02-10 19:20 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-02-10 21:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2010-02-10 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, virtualization, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
H. Peter Anvin
On Wednesday 2010-02-10 19:38, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 02/10/2010 10:13 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> As I was compile-testing 2.6.33-rc with gcc-3.3,
>> binutils-2.19.51-10.26.4.x86_64, I observed a failure when
>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is turned on:
>>
>
> Yeah, there's a gcc bug of some kind there, and its very hard to see how to
> work around it. When we last discussed this, I think we were close to deciding
> to obsolete gcc 3.3.
>
> HPA, do you remember?
In fact, there's such a big bug in there that I'll get a runaway
allocation later on when kvm.o is to be compiled. This is getting fun,
but I am absolutely fine with obsoleting 3.x :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Paravirt compile failure with gcc33
2010-02-10 19:20 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2010-02-10 21:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2010-02-10 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, virtualization, Ingo Molnar,
Thomas Gleixner
On 02/10/2010 11:20 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2010-02-10 19:38, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2010 10:13 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> As I was compile-testing 2.6.33-rc with gcc-3.3,
>>> binutils-2.19.51-10.26.4.x86_64, I observed a failure when
>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is turned on:
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, there's a gcc bug of some kind there, and its very hard to see how to
>> work around it. When we last discussed this, I think we were close to deciding
>> to obsolete gcc 3.3.
>>
>> HPA, do you remember?
>
> In fact, there's such a big bug in there that I'll get a runaway
> allocation later on when kvm.o is to be compiled. This is getting fun,
> but I am absolutely fine with obsoleting 3.x :)
I have heard of some people using 3.4, but I'm not sure if anyone cares
for current kernels and for x86, in particular. Some other
architectures might still be stuck on 3.x.
For x86 in particular 3.x support is becoming more of a headache than a
help.
-hpa
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Paravirt compile failure with gcc33
@ 2010-02-10 21:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2010-02-10 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, virtualization,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner
On 02/10/2010 11:20 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2010-02-10 19:38, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2010 10:13 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> As I was compile-testing 2.6.33-rc with gcc-3.3,
>>> binutils-2.19.51-10.26.4.x86_64, I observed a failure when
>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is turned on:
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, there's a gcc bug of some kind there, and its very hard to see how to
>> work around it. When we last discussed this, I think we were close to deciding
>> to obsolete gcc 3.3.
>>
>> HPA, do you remember?
>
> In fact, there's such a big bug in there that I'll get a runaway
> allocation later on when kvm.o is to be compiled. This is getting fun,
> but I am absolutely fine with obsoleting 3.x :)
I have heard of some people using 3.4, but I'm not sure if anyone cares
for current kernels and for x86, in particular. Some other
architectures might still be stuck on 3.x.
For x86 in particular 3.x support is becoming more of a headache than a
help.
-hpa
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread