On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:00 AM, David Miller<[email protected]> wrote: > From: Matt Turner <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:28:53 -0400 > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:51 AM, David Miller<[email protected]> wrote: >>> From: Matt Turner <[email protected]> >>> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:45:39 -0400 >>> >>>> Cc: David S. Miller <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner <[email protected]> >>> >>> This breaks 32-bit sparc. >>> >>> It will cause the binaries built to be tagged as needing v8plus or v9 >>> instructions. They therefore won't execute or load on a 32-bit sparc >>> system. >>> >>> That's why I encoded the membars using explicit instruction constants, >>> rather than using the usual mnemonics. >> >> Surely gcc defines a macro we can check for? Something like __sparcv9 >> or __arch64__? What is preferred? > > The correct test is something like: > > #if defined(__sparc__) && defined(__arch64__) >
Please review the attached patch. Thanks for the input. Matt
Use-proper-membar-stbar-instructions-on-SPARC.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
