From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 30 18:14:24 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 5F91716A41B; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: perforce@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE3C16A417; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:14:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raj@semihalf.com) Received: from mail.semihalf.com (mail.semihalf.com [83.15.139.206]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8039E13C44B; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:14:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raj@semihalf.com) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.semihalf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEF514655; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:22:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.semihalf.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.semihalf.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27122-08; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:22:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47A0BE7A.1030307@semihalf.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:14:18 +0100 From: Rafal Jaworowski MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Moolenaar References: <200801230414.m0N4E4ng009323@repoman.freebsd.org> <4797C8E0.4070100@freebsd.org> <4798C436.6090904@gmail.com> <20080125.100006.-262784007.imp@bsdimp.com> <479A17AC.4070004@freebsd.org> <479A26CE.6020104@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at semihalf.com Cc: yanegomi@gmail.com, perforce@FreeBSD.org, marcel@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" , grehan@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 133911 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:14:24 -0000 Hi Marcel, >> IIRC, almost any AIM binary I tried executing caused FP exceptions >> (actually, >> an illegal instrusction ;) on e500, even such that wouldn't be >> expected tu use >> FPU. I didn't investigate this at all, but maybe the compiler was >> using FPRs >> for optimizations or something of that sort, don't know, so the frequency >> might not be that low in reality. > > We didn't see this at all. We typically only saw ntpdate > and top crap out, because they actually use FP. Most of > the binaries were fine without -softfloat. > > Note also that a stray FP status register initialization > operation in crtX can cause all processes to fail, even > if there's no FP in the process. Your problem may have > been caused by libc, crt or libgcc. In fact, we may have > seen it ourselves as well and fixed that place to get to > where we ended up without softfloat (i.e. only ntpdate, > top, etc capping out). Hm, yes, this could be it. Do you happen to recall the proximity of those fixes/changes you have applied back then? It's nothing serious, I'm just curious, maybe I'd give this another spin in free time (he, he). I also had a closer look at your import and it seems to me some further work is required: there are NetBSD definitions/macros missing, and from what I could see bulk of the code is already in the tree: lib/libc/sparc64/fpu. It's some older version than you've pulled in, and sparc64 is apparently using this for libc connection (not sure if this is what Peter was referring to in one of the previous emails?), but we probably should share this and not keep a separate copy. Rafal