On 09/08/2016 11:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 09/08/2016 05:06 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
What error are you seeing?
Something else entirely.
My alpha kernel is crashing. I thought it was something in this patch set,
after I rebased, but now I can see it's in HEAD too. I'll have to spen
On 09/08/2016 05:06 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
What error are you seeing?
Something else entirely.
My alpha kernel is crashing. I thought it was something in this patch set,
after I rebased, but now I can see it's in HEAD too. I'll have to spend some
time tracking it down.
r~
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Pranith Kumar
wrote:
>> On 09/08/2016 10:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Ho hum. I think I've mucked something up here too.
>> Please ignore this pull.
>>
>
> I think I found the error. It looks like the fence optimization patch
> is causing the error.
>
> I wil
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 10:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Three unrelated patches and Pranith's memory barrier patch sets.
>>
>> The alignment patch is in support of Sparc's ldf instructions:
>> 8 and 16-byte memory operations that require on
On 09/08/2016 10:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
Three unrelated patches and Pranith's memory barrier patch sets.
The alignment patch is in support of Sparc's ldf instructions:
8 and 16-byte memory operations that require only 4-byte alignment.
It's just as easy to support this kind of misalignm
Three unrelated patches and Pranith's memory barrier patch sets.
The alignment patch is in support of Sparc's ldf instructions:
8 and 16-byte memory operations that require only 4-byte alignment.
It's just as easy to support this kind of misalignment as any other.
As mentioned in the commit, we'd
