On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 06:41:49AM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > I'll try upgrading from gcc-4.0 to gcc-4.1, and if/when that has no > effect, I'll go looking for a later binutils in Debian's "unstable" > tree (I've already had to go to the "testing" tree to get beyond gcc-3 > and binutils-2.15.X). Report to follow later today. Ok. > Item for consideration: what kind of optimization is enabled for your > test case compile vs. what's being used for the kernel build? That's > another variable we need to sort out. For what it's worth, I do *not* > have CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE enabled: the comment about "watch out > for broken compilers" was enough to scare me off while we're trying to > chase this down. Well I thought of this already and tried my test case without any flags but -Wall, with -O2 and -Os. Same result. I also compiled my test case with the options used by the kernel (which ATM isn't compiled with -Os), same thing. I've attached to this email a tarball of what I use to test the compiler/binutils. It's faster than recompiling the whole kernel on these slow machines! -- Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer [email protected]
Attachment:
strncpy_debug.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: strncpy (maybe others) broken on Alpha
- From: Ivan Kokshaysky <[email protected]>
- Re: strncpy (maybe others) broken on Alpha
- References:
- Re: strncpy (maybe others) broken on Alpha
- From: Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer <[email protected]>
- Re: strncpy (maybe others) broken on Alpha
- From: [email protected] (Bob Tracy)
- Re: strncpy (maybe others) broken on Alpha
- Prev by Date: Re: Removing .tmp_versions considered harmful
- Next by Date: Re: iptables is complaining with bogus unknown error 18446744073709551615
- Previous by thread: Re: strncpy (maybe others) broken on Alpha
- Next by thread: Re: strncpy (maybe others) broken on Alpha
- Index(es):
 |