From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 94A07385829C; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 10:31:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 94A07385829C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1662114686; bh=xl7XUnrq7lyPl7evdsuJkXaSOKxUh8eV5BAbzq81NDc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=GVlV75ofBc44ixrb8jmRk5A2HVnd9ePlkUXwYYVZf5xTdvA5B5Cde/uA7oTE+GsAd geLd0+sqdaTzj1flWxZiMXQRq/rvl46yCZciucTBFvnIuZHmpz7vBqPCogax8yKtY5 ues7t6WY8XFMMlhdwEQQhupPS0gZfv4Dv4XLkE5Q= From: "dilfridge at gentoo dot org" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/29537] [2.34 regression]: Alignment issue on m68k when using futexes on qemu-user Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 10:31:21 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.34 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dilfridge at gentoo dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29537 --- Comment #7 from Andreas K. Huettel --- (In reply to Adhemerval Zanella from comment #2) > It seems a real issue, but I am puzzled why we have not see any issue so > far. I take mostly runs were done in single-core, where hardware did not > enforce 32-bit alignment with atomic operations. >=20 > A better change would be to use: >=20 > diff --git a/sysdeps/nptl/libc-lockP.h b/sysdeps/nptl/libc-lockP.h > index d3a6837fd2..9efe962588 100644 > --- a/sysdeps/nptl/libc-lockP.h > +++ b/sysdeps/nptl/libc-lockP.h > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ > #include >=20 > /* Mutex type. */ > -typedef int __libc_lock_t; > +typedef int __libc_lock_t __LOCK_ALIGNMENT; > typedef struct { pthread_mutex_t mutex; } __rtld_lock_recursive_t; > typedef pthread_rwlock_t __libc_rwlock_t; >=20 > Since __LOCK_ALIGNMENT is defined per architecture if required. The HPPA > also requires a 16-byte alignment for locks, although it is just a > historical artifact to keep compatibility with old implementation. I've added this to glibc-2.35, recompiled and reinstalled glibc, and was th= en able to=20 * update my chroot to newest packages * and have it rebuild itself=20 at MAKEOPTS=3D"-j17" without any issues. (This means, whereas building pyth= on always failed before, now I built python-3.10 and python-3.11 each twice, without problems.) So, LGTM. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=