From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos O'Donell Subject: Re: [PATCH] parisc: futex: Use same lock set as lws calls Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:55:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4E9C9643.6030309@systemhalted.org> References: <20111009204010.GA22374@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <20111017152358.GA3518@glitch> <4E9C6F9E.5000605@bell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, linux-parisc To: John David Anglin Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E9C6F9E.5000605@bell.net> List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org On 10/17/2011 2:10 PM, John David Anglin wrote: > On 10/17/2011 11:47 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> The test-fork1 failure is still unexplained and happens intermittently. > > I have built a lot of unstable on my rp3440. I think this one causes failures in the thread > testsuites of perl, python2.7 and glib2.0. These are characterized by tests hanging. > > There is another class of failures. They typically cause my rp3440 to crash due > to cache corruption. The GCC libgomp and libatomic-ops testsuite seem to trigger > this one. As I have mentioned, it's the libgomp "for" tests that >> >> The cancellation issues happen in tst-cancel*. >> >> I believe the cancellation issues are toolchain issues and I need to >> look into them. > Possibly, this is related to the following bug that I found last week building mpfr-3.1.0: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50691 > A call to __tls_get_addr clobbers first argument of call to mpfr_cache. Don't have a > fix at the moment, but there is a simple testcase. > > On a different subject, I tried to get udev-172-1 working. However, this breaks bootstrap > due to an invalid argument in a call to inotify_init. It's somewhat timing dependent since > some kernels will boot if they build enough of /dev before udev messes up. In any case, > I believe that Guy Martin posted a patch a year or so ago to correct an inconsistency > between the glibc and the kernel for some bit definitions. I'm thinking this may fix the > udev problem. What patch is this? I don't remember it. URL? > It appears that this change got lost and didn't make it into the debian glibc patch set. > Was a consensus reached on how to fix this inconsistency? > > I plan on seeing if I can resolve the GCC mpfr bug, then I want to rebuild glibc with > the flag bits fixed. > > I also found a GCC ICE compiling udev-172-1 with gcc-4.4. Gcc-4.5 and gcc-4.6 seem > ok. Cheers, Carlos.