Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:40:26 +0200 (CEST) | From | Krzysztof Oledzki <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.27.27 |
| |
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Marc Dionne wrote: >>> >>> Hmm. This sounds more like the binutils bug that people had. Sounds like >>> an assembler bug if the *.o file ends up being empty or at some fixed >>> size. If it was cc1 that fails, I'd expect to not see an *.o file at all, >>> since it didn't generate good assembly. >>> >>> In fact, your behavior sounds like the thing that produces the *.o files >>> core-dumped or died for other reasons, and had a 64kB buffer that either >>> got flushed or not. That would explain the "zero or exactly 64kB" size. >>> >>> It could be ccache too, of course. >> >> Actually in my case it turns out that it is ccache after all - if I remove it >> from the picture everything is fine. If I re-enable it, even with a clean >> cache, I get the problem. >> >> It might just be a coincidence that it's triggered by the -fwrapv change. > > Ok, so this is getting ridiculous. Do we have _three_ different kernel > issues going on at the same time, all subtly related to tools issues > rather than the kernel source tree itself? > > That's just completely bizarre. > > So right now we have: > > - Krzysztof Oledzki: the only one who so far has really pinpointed it to > the -fwrapv change itself. > > It would be good to really double-check that this is not about ccache, > since Marc apparently gets a good kernel without ccache, and -fwrapv > seems to be involved.
There is no ccache configured in my systems and the same problem appears on a different servers (both i386 and x86-64). However, the configs are very similar and the hardware is nearly identical.
I'm pretty sure the only different between bootable and unbootable kernel is that fwrapv vs strict-overflow change.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Olędzki
| |