From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Feb  3 18:43:31 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: sparc64@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9421C16A420;
	Fri,  3 Feb 2006 18:43:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from scottl@pooker.samsco.org)
Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1255543D49;
	Fri,  3 Feb 2006 18:43:30 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from scottl@pooker.samsco.org)
Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57])
	by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k13IYSlk052448;
	Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:34:28 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from scottl@pooker.samsco.org)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:34:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott Long <scottl@pooker.samsco.org>
To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060203.105106.41729362.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20060203113210.G10747@pooker.samsco.org>
References: <86fyn242w0.fsf@xps.des.no>
	<20060203090804.Q59587@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
	<86irrwre3y.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203.105106.41729362.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-554998001-1138991668=:10747"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed 
	version=3.1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on pooker.samsco.org
Cc: stable@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, sparc64@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64
X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc <freebsd-sparc64.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sparc64>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sparc64>,
	<mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:43:31 -0000

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--0-554998001-1138991668=:10747
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Warner Losh wrote:

> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav)
> Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64
> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:22:25 +0100
>
>> Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> writes:
>>> The interesting point is: why does it build on my real sparc (2-UII CPU=
s,
>>> 512MByte memory), but not on the tinderbox. Is there something about th=
e
>>> crosscompiler that is different?
>>
>> Different CFLAGS perhaps?
>
> These different CFLAGS have been a source of unending problems.  I've
> broken the tinderbox build a couple of times when my LINT build worked
> w/o hassle.  And I got grumped at it, even though I did everything
> right.  Maybe we can build the interbox with a set of standard, well
> known flags?
>
> Warner
>

In this particular case, the problem only shows up when the module builds=
=20
as part of the buildkernel target.  It does not show up when the code is=20
built into thekernel nor when built as a standalone module.  I think that=
=20
this inconsistency is actually more problematic.


Scott
--0-554998001-1138991668=:10747--