Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:01:36 -0800 From: toivolr@juno.com To: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: freebsd-alpha-digest V5 #262 Message-ID: <20020131.160136.-1678843.0.toivolr@juno.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
unsubscribe - freebsd-alpha-digest. i've sent same message to majordomo many times. do it, ok.... On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:00:30 -0800 (PST) owner-freebsd-alpha-digest@FreeBSD.ORG (freebsd-alpha-digest) writes: > > freebsd-alpha-digest Wednesday, January 30 2002 Volume 05 : > Number 262 > > > > In this issue: > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > rpc.statd/SIOCGIFCONF revisited > I WANT YOU (FREE) 22358 > ps(1) output Q > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:54:08 -0800 > From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > David O'Brien wrote: > > > After the latest binutils import, attempts to cross-compile > > > Alpha fail at the cross-tools stage of buildworld as shown > > > below. Please also note sed(1) complaints about nonexistent > > > ldscripts/ files. I suspect that "normal" alpha worlds may > > > be broken as well, but I can't tell for sure. > > > > I am sure it probably is. There is a lack of developers using > -current > > on Alpha's that progress on i386, IA64, x86-64, and sparc64 cannot > be > > held back. I will fix the Alpha problems when I get a chance, but > it may > > be a week. > > I know: add cross compilation for Alpha to your regression > on i386, IA84, x86-64, or sparc64, and that will catcth > things like this in the future, without you needing to have > Alpha hardware, and without you orphaning it as a result of > your changes. > > - -- Terry > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:13:10 +0100 > From: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:54:08PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > David O'Brien wrote: > > > > After the latest binutils import, attempts to cross-compile > > > > Alpha fail at the cross-tools stage of buildworld as shown > > > > below. Please also note sed(1) complaints about nonexistent > > > > ldscripts/ files. I suspect that "normal" alpha worlds may > > > > be broken as well, but I can't tell for sure. > > > > > > I am sure it probably is. There is a lack of developers using > -current > > > on Alpha's that progress on i386, IA64, x86-64, and sparc64 > cannot be > > > held back. I will fix the Alpha problems when I get a chance, > but it may > > > be a week. > > > > I know: add cross compilation for Alpha to your regression > > on i386, IA84, x86-64, or sparc64, and that will catcth > > things like this in the future, without you needing to have > > Alpha hardware, and without you orphaning it as a result of > > your changes. > > Not a relevant comment I'm afraid, David has Alpha hardware ;) > He helped me often enough with Alpha issues. > > Wilko > - -- > | / o / /_ _ email: wilko@FreeBSD.org > |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte Arnhem, the Netherlands > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:15:56 +0100 > From: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 03:10:11AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:02:18PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:08:21PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > David! > > > > > > > > After the latest binutils import, attempts to cross-compile > > > > Alpha fail at the cross-tools stage of buildworld as shown > > > > below. Please also note sed(1) complaints about nonexistent > > > > ldscripts/ files. I suspect that "normal" alpha worlds may > > > > be broken as well, but I can't tell for sure. > > > > > > I am sure it probably is. There is a lack of developers using > -current > > > on Alpha's that progress on i386, IA64, x86-64, and sparc64 > cannot be > > > held back. I will fix the Alpha problems when I get a chance, > but it may > > > be a week. > > > > If it's a lack of available hardware, perhaps I can help, I have > one > > alpha (a alpha station 220, I think) currently running -stable, > and will > > likely get between one and three more later this week, I could > easily > > make one or two available to the community. > > I think it would not hurt to have a few boxes running -current > accesible via the Net. Most -alpha folk don't run -current as the > Alpha port is very often broken as a 'by product' of x86 > developments. > That makes -current/Alpha often a frustrating place to be. > > And this is one of the main frustrations for David if I am not > mistaken. > > > They would be physically located in Denmark, Europe (traceroute to > > amnesiac.wheel.dk for a idea of network connectivity). > > That is close ;^) > > - -- > | / o / /_ _ email: wilko@FreeBSD.org > |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte Arnhem, the Netherlands > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:20:39 -0800 > From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > Terry Lambert wrote: > > David O'Brien wrote: > > > > After the latest binutils import, attempts to cross-compile > > > > Alpha fail at the cross-tools stage of buildworld as shown > > > > below. Please also note sed(1) complaints about nonexistent > > > > ldscripts/ files. I suspect that "normal" alpha worlds may > > > > be broken as well, but I can't tell for sure. > > > > > > I am sure it probably is. There is a lack of developers using > -current > > > on Alpha's that progress on i386, IA64, x86-64, and sparc64 > cannot be > > > held back. I will fix the Alpha problems when I get a chance, > but it may > > > be a week. > > > > I know: add cross compilation for Alpha to your regression > > on i386, IA84, x86-64, or sparc64, and that will catcth > > things like this in the future, without you needing to have > > Alpha hardware, and without you orphaning it as a result of > > your changes. > > That's easy to say when signing up somebody else to do the work. > > Seriously though, in spite of pretending otherwise, i386 *is* our > reference > platform, and the "other" platforms require people with the hardware > and > interest to keep it "alive". This is the same with alpha as ia64, > sparc64, > powerpc, mips, x86-64 etc. If there isn't enough critical mass to > keep it > going, then it is dead by definition. Witness the mips port, it > pretty > much never made it to square one. I've done my bit over the last 6 > months > to keep the alpha alive (ported KSE phase 1 to alpha as well as 3 > other > platforms that I knew little to nothing about). > > I dont suppose you actually thought to go and have a look and see > what the > problem is yourself, rather than assigning the work to somebody > else? > > Cheers, > - -Peter > - -- > Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; > peter@netplex.com.au > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:22:48 -0800 > From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > Wilko Bulte wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 03:10:11AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:02:18PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:08:21PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov > wrote: > > > > > David! > > > > > > > > > > After the latest binutils import, attempts to cross-compile > > > > > Alpha fail at the cross-tools stage of buildworld as shown > > > > > below. Please also note sed(1) complaints about nonexistent > > > > > ldscripts/ files. I suspect that "normal" alpha worlds may > > > > > be broken as well, but I can't tell for sure. > > > > > > > > I am sure it probably is. There is a lack of developers using > -current > > > > on Alpha's that progress on i386, IA64, x86-64, and sparc64 > cannot be > > > > held back. I will fix the Alpha problems when I get a chance, > but it may > > > > be a week. > > > > > > If it's a lack of available hardware, perhaps I can help, I have > one > > > alpha (a alpha station 220, I think) currently running -stable, > and will > > > likely get between one and three more later this week, I could > easily > > > make one or two available to the community. > > > > I think it would not hurt to have a few boxes running -current > > accesible via the Net. Most -alpha folk don't run -current as the > > Alpha port is very often broken as a 'by product' of x86 > developments. > > That makes -current/Alpha often a frustrating place to be. > > Well, there is (sort of) one box available. With beast.freebsd.org, > committers can do buildworlds etc. There is local disk space, and > MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX is your friend. > > Cheers, > - -Peter > - -- > Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; > peter@netplex.com.au > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:23:48 -0800 > From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 03:10:11AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > I am sure it probably is. There is a lack of developers using > -current > > > on Alpha's that progress on i386, IA64, x86-64, and sparc64 > cannot be > > > held back. I will fix the Alpha problems when I get a chance, > but it may > > > be a week. > > > > If it's a lack of available hardware, perhaps I can help, > > lack of time > > > I have one alpha (a alpha station 220, I think) currently running > > That box takes *way* too long to build world on. > > - -- > - -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:50:17 +0100 > From: Jesper Skriver <jesper@FreeBSD.org> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:23:48AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 03:10:11AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > I am sure it probably is. There is a lack of developers using > -current > > > > on Alpha's that progress on i386, IA64, x86-64, and sparc64 > cannot be > > > > held back. I will fix the Alpha problems when I get a chance, > but it may > > > > be a week. > > > > > > If it's a lack of available hardware, perhaps I can help, > > > > lack of time > > > > > I have one alpha (a alpha station 220, I think) currently > running > > > > That box takes *way* too long to build world on. > > I know, but the other boxes are newer, and probably significant > faster, but I'll know as soon as I get my hands on them. > > /Jesper > > - -- > Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 > Work: Network manager @ AS3292 (Tele Danmark DataNetworks) > Private: FreeBSD committer @ AS2109 (A much smaller network ;-) > > One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, > One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:13:13 -0800 > From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:20:39AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > That's easy to say when signing up somebody else to do the work. > > > > Seriously though, in spite of pretending otherwise, i386 *is* our > reference > > platform, and the "other" platforms require people with the > hardware and > > interest to keep it "alive". > ... > > If there isn't enough critical mass to keep it going, then it is > dead > > by definition. > > This is my current feeling -- that Alpha 5-CURRENT no long has any > critical mass. Thus it isn't worth the time or trouble. > > My interests have moved over to sparc64 and x86-64 where I believe > there > will be a much larger following. It is shame after I've spent > several > thousand $$ on Alpha hardware over the past three years. > > - -- > - -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:32:29 +0100 > From: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:13:13AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:20:39AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > That's easy to say when signing up somebody else to do the work. > > > > > > Seriously though, in spite of pretending otherwise, i386 *is* > our reference > > > platform, and the "other" platforms require people with the > hardware and > > > interest to keep it "alive". > > ... > > > If there isn't enough critical mass to keep it going, then it is > dead > > > by definition. > > > > This is my current feeling -- that Alpha 5-CURRENT no long has any > > critical mass. Thus it isn't worth the time or trouble. > > > > My interests have moved over to sparc64 and x86-64 where I believe > there > > For x86-64 I see the point, sparc64 is not something I would want > to spend > any time on (no disrespect to the sparc64 folks, I just don't think > sparc > will have any great momentum). > > > will be a much larger following. It is shame after I've spent > several > > thousand $$ on Alpha hardware over the past three years. > > And Alpha hardware is so much nicer than the x86 crap out there :( > > W/ > - -- > | / o / /_ _ email: wilko@FreeBSD.org > |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte FreeBSD core team secretary > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:29:50 +0100 > From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de> > Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 07:32:29PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:13:13AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:20:39AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > > That's easy to say when signing up somebody else to do the > work. > > > > > > > > Seriously though, in spite of pretending otherwise, i386 *is* > our reference > > > > platform, and the "other" platforms require people with the > hardware and > > > > interest to keep it "alive". > > > ... > > Not to forget knowledge and time. > > > > > If there isn't enough critical mass to keep it going, then it > is dead > > > > by definition. > > > > > > This is my current feeling -- that Alpha 5-CURRENT no long has > any > > > critical mass. Thus it isn't worth the time or trouble. > > I'm would not call it dead only because it's always behind > development. > The latest alpha-current I'm running is nearly a month old - just > because I always want to see a stable i386 before which I havn't > seen > for the last weeks. > Sorry - I can't spend my time on alpha *and* machine independ bugs. > > > > My interests have moved over to sparc64 and x86-64 where I > believe there > > Many alpha bugs and problems are there because of LP64 not because > of > alpha - other LP64 platforms will put LP64 into a much stronger > position and help alpha a lot. > I was always interested in FreeBSD-alpha because of having more than > 4G > memory and more than 4G address space - mostly the later. > None is working - Memory is limited to 2G and increasing MAXDSIZ to > big values is simply broken. > Not ashtonishing that there is no big interest for anyoone to use > FreeBSD-alpha in production - you can have these limits cheaper and > without the bug troubles using Intel hardware. > I always been sorrowed to run an FreeBSD-alpha as a cvsup server. > > > For x86-64 I see the point, sparc64 is not something I would want > to spend > > any time on (no disrespect to the sparc64 folks, I just don't > think sparc > > will have any great momentum). > > > > > will be a much larger following. It is shame after I've spent > several > > > thousand $$ on Alpha hardware over the past three years. > > That's what makes me still beleave in FreeBSD-alpha. > Alpha is the cheapest 64 bit platform available. > Think a moment on what you have paid for your sun labeled symbios. > > > And Alpha hardware is so much nicer than the x86 crap out there :( > > The same goes for sparc64 compared to x86. > And sparc64 has a better future from the hardware perspective. > I can understand why people are looking forward to sparc64. > > - -- > B.Walter COSMO-Project > http://www.cosmo-project.de > ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:46:21 +0100 > From: Volker Stolz <stolz@hyperion.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> > Subject: rpc.statd/SIOCGIFCONF revisited > > - --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > > Here's another try after the previous patch did mor good than harm. > What happens is this: the ioctl fills a buffer with various entries > for interfaces. If it's a sockaddr, everything goes well, that's > 7x8 = 56 bytes. Unluckily, for inet6, you get 28 bytes. > > In your buffer that means something like > - --|--|--|... > 56 28 XX > Now the userland code in e.g. libc/rpc/get_myaddress.c memcpy tried > now to access XX which obviusly isn't at an 8 byte aligned address. > > memcpy() *should* be able to copy this region. *But*: > memcpy() gets optimized by gcc to use floating point registers > (unless you specify -fno-builtin). These instructions can only work > on double word aligned data :-/ Something similar happens when > you use an assignment like foo = *bar. > > If you use -fno-builtin, get_myaddress will crash at > *addr = *((struct sockaddr_in *)&ifrn->ifr_addr); > for a similar reason (the address has to be double word aligned > or the ldq will throw... > > You can find several hints in itojun's and on NetBSD, boling down > to inet6 not being LP64 friendly, and SIOCGIFCONF being especially > nasty. > > The attached patch *should* do the following: copy the requested > number of bytes but advance to the next aligned positioned and > update the sa_len entry only in the structure returned to userland. > Thus, if you just use the sa_len entry without resorting to > sizeof() your application should work fine. > > Comments are definetly appreciated. I cannot claim that I > understand everything of the stuff going on there, so I'd > like to get some thumbs up/down from savvier people. > - -- > Wonderful \hbox (0.80312pt too nice) in paragraph at lines 16--18 > Volker Stolz * stolz@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de > Please use PGP or S/MIME for correspondence! > > - --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="alpha.patch" > > - --- sys/net/if.c.orig Wed Jan 30 21:25:50 2002 > +++ sys/net/if.c Wed Jan 30 21:34:27 2002 > @@ -1318,17 +1318,20 @@ > sizeof (ifr)); > ifrp++; > } else { > - - if (space < sizeof (ifr) + > sa->sa_len - > + if (space < sizeof (ifr) + > _ALIGN(sa->sa_len) - > sizeof(*sa)) > break; > - - space -= sa->sa_len - > sizeof(*sa); > + space -= _ALIGN(sa->sa_len) - > sizeof(*sa); > error = copyout((caddr_t)&ifr, > (caddr_t)ifrp, > sizeof > (ifr.ifr_name)); > if (error == 0) > error = copyout((caddr_t)sa, > (caddr_t)&ifrp->ifr_addr, > sa->sa_len); > - - ifrp = (struct ifreq *) > - - (sa->sa_len + > (caddr_t)&ifrp->ifr_addr); > + /* Update sa_len to aligned value > in output */ > + ifrp->ifr_addr.sa_len = > _ALIGN(sa->sa_len); > + /* Advance ptr, accounting for > spilled padding, too */ > + ifrp = _ALIGN((struct ifreq *) > + (sa->sa_len + > (caddr_t)&ifrp->ifr_addr)); > } > if (error) > break; > > - --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:59:54 -2000 > From: lisa_seemonline2@msn.com > Subject: I WANT YOU (FREE) 22358 > > F R E E F R E E F R E E F R E E > F R E E F R E E F R E E F R E E > F R E E F R E E F R E E F R E E > > > COME FUCK MY JUICY WET HOLE > http://cumageddon.com/?r=first&p=e > > > I WISH THIS BIG DILDO WAS REALLY YOUR HUGE COCK > http://hardcorepleasures.net/?r=second&p=e > > > I'M TIRES OF FINGERING MYSELF. I NEED YOUR HUGE COCK NOW. > http://smoothai.com/?r=third&p=e > > > > > F R E E F R E E F R E E F R E E > F R E E F R E E F R E E F R E E > F R E E F R E E F R E E F R E E > F R E E F R E E F R E E F R E E > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:00:15 -0600 > From: Steve Price <steve@havk.org> > Subject: ps(1) output Q > > Here's a really stupid question but something I've wondered for a > long > time. Why is it that the output of ps(1) on the Alpha always looks > like > this? > > PID TT STAT TIME COMMAND > 77337 p0 Ss 0:00.21 (csh) > 78179 p0 R+ 0:00.00 (ps) > > While on the x86 it look like this? > > PID TT STAT TIME COMMAND > 80796 p0 Is+ 0:00.04 zsh > 14534 r5 I+ 3:48.99 mutt -y > > Can anyone point out what I'm obviously missing besides a clue? :) > > Thanks. > > - -steve > > ------------------------------ > > End of freebsd-alpha-digest V5 #262 > *********************************** > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with unsubscribe freebsd-alpha-digest in the body of the message ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020131.160136.-1678843.0.toivolr>