From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 31 15:40:03 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954A116A417 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:40:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836B913C468 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:40:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id lBVFe3kB090473 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:40:03 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id lBVFe3xK090469; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:40:03 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:40:03 GMT Message-Id: <200712311540.lBVFe3xK090469@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.org From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Subject: Re: sparc64/108757: [rtc] can't boot if rtc stuffed, no means of recovery X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mark Linimon List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:40:03 -0000 The following reply was made to PR sparc64/108757; it has been noted by GNATS. From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: sparc64/108757: [rtc] can't boot if rtc stuffed, no means of recovery Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:36:52 -0600 ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Grillet ----- The description was wrong: however there was a problem more serious than I reported: A perfectly good RTC was incorrectly producing an error message reporting it as faulty to the extent that FreeBSD failed to install. I believe from circumstantial evidence (that may be entirely wrong) that this was a side effect of a "64-bit integer" related issue where 32 bits a written and 64 read. I believe the correct thing would be to label it as unreproduceable.