From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Current KVM head crashes on startup
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:19:44 +0000
Message-ID: <499BE0C0.1040202@redhat.com>
References: <499AF81E.7080406@egenera.com> <20090218075126.GB12284@amit-x200.pnq.redhat.com> <20090218081602.GC12284@amit-x200.pnq.redhat.com> <499BCB9D.6070005@redhat.com> <20090218090540.GD12284@amit-x200.pnq.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
To: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44218 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751758AbZBRKTS (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:19:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20090218090540.GD12284@amit-x200.pnq.redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Amit Shah wrote:

  

>> The first version generates too much register pressure for some  
>> compilers on i386, leading to compilation failures.  The second version  
>>     
>
> Is it still valid? I tried with gcc-4.1.2 and that worked fine with the
> first version. Should we just use that version instead?
>
>   

I don't see why it would change, unless you can destroy all copies of 
the compilers that fail with it.


-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.