On 21 Jul 2012, at 18:04, Iain Sandoe wrote: > On 21 Jul 2012, at 17:43, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Iain Sandoe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The following patch was been in use internally, for some time, to handle >>> two further cases where the processor does not have lwsync. Verified on a >>> cross from i686-linux-gnu to powerpc-linux-gnu. >> This was only done for e500 and not other proessors as the e500 was >> not fully compatible even with the older spec. In that lwsync would >> cause an illegal instruction exception. This is NOT the case for 603 >> and the 440 so I don't think this patch should applied. > > The original report, for which our change was made, was of an instruction > exception caused by lwsync on 440. > I'm not personally familiar with that processor, I'll try and get access to a > board/confirm in due course. To follow up on this thread and ref[1]. This is not repeatable on a 440EP. It was reported against a device using a 440H6 core. We have not been able to locate an erratum, so we're going to drop the patch unless/until there is a specific reproducible report of failure. thanks Iain [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01817.html
