Re: Errata 67/77 / walnut bugs (was: Re: Erratum 51 bugfix?)

[dank@kegel.com]

Mark Hatle wrote:
>
> The atonicity patches had not been submitted back to glibc due to there being
> now way for me to show it was needed, and also that it ONLY affects the 405 CPU,
> which isn't the main target of glibc.
>
> We are currently working on revising our glibc patches to the current CVS
> version, and if a new patch is required I'll make sure it gets posted here.  I
> really don't know the best way to handle this in a community glibc/gcc realm.
> I'd almost like to wait and see what the GCC maintainers response is.
> Specifically how they are going to accept the patch.  Then we propose a similar
> thing to the glibc folks, explain the problem and hope they accept the patch as
> well.

Mark,
I've rediffed your glibc patch and made it conditional on defined(__PPC405__);
result at http://www.kegel.com/xgcc3/glibc-2.2.5-ppc405erratum77.patch
I haven't tested it yet, but something like that should make the maintainers happy.
What do you think?

Also, according to http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html, patches for bugs
are more likely to be accepted if there is a bug report in gnats,
so I opened a bug for stdlibc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7383
and one for glibc at
http://bugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&pr=4155

They also won't accept patches unless they've been thoroughly tested,
so let's agree on gcc and glibc patches, and use them for a few months.
If no problems pop up, let's submit them.

I've updated http://www.kegel.com/xgcc3/ppc405erratum77.html with the
above information.
- Dan

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/