From: Mark Hatle <fray@mvista.com>
To: dank@kegel.com
Cc: "linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org"
<linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>,
Jan Olderdissen <jolderdissen@ixiacom.com>,
Dan Kegel <dkegel@ixiacom.com>
Subject: Re: Errata 67/77 / walnut bugs (was: Re: Erratum 51 bugfix?)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 08:10:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D3D55BA.711A3052@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3D3D4E6A.9550399F@kegel.com
dank@kegel.com wrote:
>
> 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?
Sounds good.. (as I said before we're in the process of re doing our diff for
2.2.5 as well, so I'll compare them and make sure neither of us missed
anything. We havn't added the __PPC405__ bit yet, but planned on doing so
soon.)
> 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.
Again, sounds good.
--Mark
> - Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-23 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-20 6:23 Errata 67/77 / walnut bugs (was: Re: Erratum 51 bugfix?) dank
2002-07-20 15:14 ` Mark Hatle
2002-07-20 15:38 ` dank
2002-07-20 16:02 ` Mark Hatle
2002-07-20 17:57 ` dank
2002-07-23 12:39 ` dank
2002-07-23 13:10 ` Mark Hatle [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-17 5:23 Erratum 51 bugfix? David Gibson
2001-09-17 16:32 ` Dan Malek
2001-09-18 0:29 ` Errata 67/77 / walnut bugs (was: Re: Erratum 51 bugfix?) David Gibson
2001-09-18 18:52 ` Dan Malek
2001-09-19 2:19 ` David Gibson
2001-09-19 2:23 ` Mark Hatle
2001-09-19 6:41 ` Dan Malek
2001-09-19 10:45 ` Ralph Blach
2001-09-19 6:39 ` Dan Malek
2001-09-21 4:36 ` David Gibson
2001-09-21 5:23 ` Dan Malek
2001-09-21 5:33 ` David Gibson
2001-09-21 6:24 ` Dan Malek
2001-09-21 8:04 ` Dan Malek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3D3D55BA.711A3052@mvista.com \
--to=fray@mvista.com \
--cc=dank@kegel.com \
--cc=dkegel@ixiacom.com \
--cc=jolderdissen@ixiacom.com \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).