From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hetzner.pbcl.net (mail.pbcl.net [88.198.119.4]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069F173CBD for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:31:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cpc5-cmbg17-2-0-cust97.5-4.cable.virginm.net ([86.30.112.98] helo=phil-desktop) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZmM9r-0004Ws-Go; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:31:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1444829509.5251.43.camel@pbcl.net> From: Phil Blundell To: Otavio Salvador Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:31:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <9C694221-E92E-468E-A950-1D8B530757DD@gmail.com> <6BA567C8-0D8A-402A-B733-2E9DECFD9844@gmail.com> <32B54709-BA87-45AC-BDC0-22604B6D3979@gmail.com> <6C58EED7-075B-4B58-B401-DB9EF31B8D50@gmail.com> <1444738079.5251.29.camel@pbcl.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gcc: Avoid non-aligned access for ARM5e X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:31:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 09:18 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 08:45 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > I understand Khem is excitant to include more non-upstreamed > > > patches > > > into GCC but I would prefer to have it included and Java working > > > fine > > > than a local patch applied forever. :-( > > > > Maybe you'd like to file a bug against upstream GCC in that case. > > I > > think Khem already suggested this to Jens but he said he had "no > > time" > > to do that. > > We don't require upstream bugzilla items for patches in all recipes > so GCC should not be an exception. Sorry but I don't buy this > argument and I think the patch is clear and short enough to go in. GCC is not necessarily an exception to that rule. If the patch was a correct and proper fix for the bug then I would be happy to see it installed even without an upstream bugzilla entry. But that is not the case here: the patch is, at best, a hack which happens to work around the problem in some circumstances. It is not clear what the underlying bug is, or whether the patch is sufficient to avoid the bug in all cases (i.e. whether it might in fact happen for ARMv6 as well). Without knowing more about the underlying GCC bug it will be very diffi cult to determine when the actual bug has been fixed and it is safe to remove the patch, in which case we might end up carrying the patch around forever. Nor is the patch entirely harmless: turning off LDRD/STRD instructions across the board will cause code size and performance to get slightly worse for all users of the compiler. If none of the proponents of the patch are prepared to make the small amount of effort required to file an upstream bug then it's not at all obvious to me that oe-core as a project should accept these various burdens associated with installing this patch. p.