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 (I am wondering if the assembler is actually correct, and that the problem is that the ATL_dupMBmm0_4_0_b0.c file is out of date).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 |