On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:22:01PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:32:43AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> > Note that the crash happened with gcc 4.1.2 and it will get the
> > -fno-unit-at-a-time flag with the proposed patch.
> >
> > That said, this option or the lack of it ought not to cause any
> > runtime crashes. If it does, I'd feel much more comfortable to know
> > exactly what the root cause is before deciding to use the flag to
> > workaround^hide it.
>
> I agree.
>
> The constraints on [no-]unit-at-a-time that I see are:
>...
> x86_64 uses unit-at-a-time always
>...
The only gcc versions that ever supported unit-at-a-time without
enabling it by default was some patched gcc 3.3 that included a
backport of unit-at-a-time to gcc 3.3.
Just as a note that I doubt this matters in practice today.
> Jeff
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
