Re: [Regression] d96ac6f2: time: Revert ALWAYS_USE_PERSISTENT_CLOCK compile time optimizaitons

Re: [Regression] d96ac6f2: time: Revert ALWAYS_USE_PERSISTENT_CLOCK compile time optimizaitons

[John Stultz]

On 06/01/2013 11:45 AM, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 05:37:05PM +0200, Jens Taprogge wrote:
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 05:16:49PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2013 04:42 PM, Jens Taprogge wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:14:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. None of this is yet making any sense to me. (And I worry
>>>>> enumerating all the mix and match of configs that work or don't only
>>>>> blurs the issues).
>>>>>
>>>>> Few base questions:
>>>>> 1) What distro is this on?
>>>> arch linux
>>>>
>>>>> 2) What gcc version are you using?
>>>> gcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20130502 (prerelease)
>>> (Sorry, I'm not very familiar with arch) Are you able to also
>>> install a 4.7 gcc in parallel to try to build with?
>>>
>>> If so, you might want to try that. Your results are just weird
>>> enough I want to just be sure we're not chasing compiler caused
>>> ghosts.
>> I will compile gcc4.6 and see if using that makes any difference.
> I have compiled two of the broken configurations with gcc-4.6 and both
> boot up.  I am not sure how to proceed from here.

Ok. That at least helps make me feel better that I'm not just crazy.

First thing, I'd probably file a bug against the Arch gcc 4.8 package, 
just in case there's any out-of-tree changes there.

I've also added the gcc mailing list to the thread to see if someone 
there can help narrow down what might be going wrong.

thanks
-john

Re: [Regression] d96ac6f2: time: Revert ALWAYS_USE_PERSISTENT_CLOCK compile time optimizaitons

[Jens Taprogge]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:07:50AM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 11:45 AM, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 05:37:05PM +0200, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> >>On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 05:16:49PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>On 05/31/2013 04:42 PM, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:14:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ok. None of this is yet making any sense to me. (And I worry
> >>>>>enumerating all the mix and match of configs that work or don't only
> >>>>>blurs the issues).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Few base questions:
> >>>>>1) What distro is this on?
> >>>>arch linux
> >>>>
> >>>>>2) What gcc version are you using?
> >>>>gcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20130502 (prerelease)
> >>>(Sorry, I'm not very familiar with arch) Are you able to also
> >>>install a 4.7 gcc in parallel to try to build with?
> >>>
> >>>If so, you might want to try that. Your results are just weird
> >>>enough I want to just be sure we're not chasing compiler caused
> >>>ghosts.
> >>I will compile gcc4.6 and see if using that makes any difference.
> >I have compiled two of the broken configurations with gcc-4.6 and both
> >boot up.  I am not sure how to proceed from here.
> 
> Ok. That at least helps make me feel better that I'm not just crazy.
> 
> First thing, I'd probably file a bug against the Arch gcc 4.8
> package, just in case there's any out-of-tree changes there.
> 
> I've also added the gcc mailing list to the thread to see if someone
> there can help narrow down what might be going wrong.

Hello John, sorry for the delay.  I was able to do some more testing.
At first it seemed that things were working with gcc 4.8.1 (arch
upgraded).  However when I switched to Linux 3.9.5 I hit the same
problems again.  The config options are different.  Some configs that
worked with 3.9.4 broke, some that did not work boot now.

I have seen boot failure with kernels compiled using gcc 4.6 as well.
I will have to check which configuration that was.

Since the arch package is unpatched I suspect, this is not an arch
issue: https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/gcc

I find it quite strange that I was unable to find reports of problems
similar to mine on the web.  Perhaps it is a firmware issue?!  I have
don't know much about the UEFI boot process. Perhaps the firmware
expects some address to be alignment in a certain way?

Best Regards,
Jens