Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi Philippe, here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64 under different gcc compilers: unsigned long x = 0; int n = 32; x |= 1 n; The last

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi Philippe, here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64 under different gcc compilers: unsigned

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Philippe Gerum wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but latency still doesn't start up: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched CPU PIDPRI PERIOD TIMEOUTTIMEBASE

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but latency still doesn't start up: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched CPU PID

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but latency still doesn't start up: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :/root# cat

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Jan Kiszka wrote: Who the hell is using the ffnz implementation in system.h? The simulator? I kicked it out for a x64-build here, and I got no noticeable effects. No, the simulator uses the one in asm-sim/system.h. The one in nucleus/system.h is, for instance, for xnmlqueue_t in user-space.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:48 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but latency still

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Who the hell is using the ffnz implementation in system.h? The simulator? I kicked it out for a x64-build here, and I got no noticeable effects. No, the simulator uses the one in asm-sim/system.h. The one in nucleus/system.h is, for instance,

[Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Fix typo in x86_64 ffnz

2007-04-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Grrr... Index: include/asm-x86_64/hal.h === --- include/asm-x86_64/hal.h(Revision 2402) +++ include/asm-x86_64/hal.h(Arbeitskopie) @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ typedef unsigned long rthal_time_t; static inline __attribute_const__

[Xenomai-core] [PATCH] cleanup ffnz from nucleus/system.h

2007-04-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Index: xenomai/ChangeLog === --- xenomai.orig/ChangeLog +++ xenomai/ChangeLog @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@ * include/asm-x86_64/hal.h (ffnz): Fix typo that inverted the search direction. + * include/nucleus/system.h: Remove

[Xenomai-core] [PATCH] fix ffnz for 64-bit hosts

2007-04-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
I'm just not sure if #define _GNU_SOURCE is the preferred way to go. Index: xenomai/include/asm-sim/system.h === --- xenomai.orig/include/asm-sim/system.h +++ xenomai/include/asm-sim/system.h @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include