Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1278135
| Summary: | regression in binutils-2.25.1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Than Ngo <than> | ||||
| Component: | binutils | Assignee: | Nick Clifton <nickc> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | jakub, nickc, pbrobinson | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | ppc64 | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2016-01-14 12:13:29 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 1071880 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Than Ngo
2015-11-04 17:49:10 UTC
Hi Ngo, Please could you upload the ATL_dupMBmm0_4_0_b0.c for me to examine ? (I am wondering if the assembler is actually correct, and that the problem is that the ATL_dupMBmm0_4_0_b0.c file is out of date). Cheers Nick Created attachment 1090050 [details]
ATL_dupMBmm0_4_0_b0.c
it seems the new binutitls handles dctd in different way. This assembler code works fine in 2.25.
dcbt 0, pfA, 0
addi pfA, pfA, 128
dcbt 0, pfB, 0
addi pfB, pfB, 128
Hi Ngo, I am not a PowerPC architecture expert, but it looks to me like the "dcbt 0, pfA, 0" syntax is only valid on some architecture variants, not all of them. Plus, I think that what happened between 2.25 and 2.25.1 is that the architecture checking for the DCBT instruction was tightened up. Hence the problem is that code in ATL_dupMBmm0_4_0_b0.c is being assembled without the correct PowerPC variant being specified on the assembler command line. (Or maybe no architecture variant is being specified at all, and a default, basic architecture is being used ?). Does this theory make sense ? If so then maybe adding something like "-Wa,-mpower7" to the gcc command line might act as a workaround ? Cheers Nick Hi Nick, it seems you are right, the architecture checking for the DCBT instruction was tightened up in new binutils and adding -Wa,-mpower7 to assembler option the above assembler code built correctly. it seems a bug in atlas. And the issue was fixed in latest atlas |