On 23/06/14 15:30, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Sat, 21.06.14 09:05, Chase Rayfield (cusbr...@yahoo.com) wrote: > >>> If I interpret that correctly, systemd would need to define >>> _sync_sub_and_fetch_4 when building for 32-bit processors which do not >>> support the __sync_sub_and_fetch operation natively. >> Yes exactly... I think libatomic_ops can help with that and I have >> built it from git on Sparc v8 (This flag is required >> -DAO_NO_SPARC_V9). But I am not sure how to implement >> __sync_sub_and_fetch with it. Details on getting it to build here: >> https://github.com/ivmai/libatomic_ops/issues/9 >> >> I can give a systemd developer access to a box to fix this on if someone >> wants to give it a shot. I believe the reason GCC doesn't provide an >> implementation there are some pretty huge trade offs to be made with >> either performance or functionality. > Thanks, but please work with the gcc developers to solve this > generically for all gcc users, instead of work around this limitation in > every individual project independently. It's certainly time much better > spent. > > Thanks, > > Lennart >
IIRC, he told me when we discussed at IRC that systemd-udevd was the showstopper, and rest of the 'core' system built fine. Mike seems to also think this should be solved in systemd, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=514016#c9 But, too bad this goes beyond my knowledge a bit :-/ :/ Thanks, Samuli _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel