[Bug libgcj/30424] New: [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[Bug libgcj/30424] New: [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[hjl at lucon dot org]

I got

/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc: In member
function 'virtual void sun::misc::Unsafe::putIntVolatile(java::lang::Object*,
jlong, jint)':
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc:159: error:
'write_barrier' was not declared in this scope
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc: In member
function 'virtual void
sun::misc::Unsafe::putObjectVolatile(java::lang::Object*, jlong,
java::lang::Object*)':
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc:175: error:
'write_barrier' was not declared in this scope
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc: In member
function 'virtual jint sun::misc::Unsafe::getIntVolatile(java::lang::Object*,
jlong)':
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc:209: error:
'read_barrier' was not declared in this scope
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc: In member
function 'virtual java::lang::Object*
sun::misc::Unsafe::getObjectVolatile(java::lang::Object*, jlong)':
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/sun/misc/natUnsafe.cc:218: error:
'read_barrier' was not declared in this scope
make[5]: *** [sun/misc/natUnsafe.lo] Error 1


-- 
           Summary: [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libgcj
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
 GCC build triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[hjl at lucon dot org]

------- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org  2007-01-10 14:55 -------
Created an attachment (id=12881)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12881&action=view)
A patch

I am testing this patch.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-01-10 15:37 -------
*** Bug 30422 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |schwab at suse dot de


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[hjl at lucon dot org]

------- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org  2007-01-10 15:48 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=12881)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12881&action=view) [edit]
> A patch
> 
> I am testing this patch.
> 

It fixes the issue:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00440.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-01-10 16:51 -------
That patch is fine.


-- 

aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-01-10 16:51:45
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[hjl at lucon dot org]

------- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org  2007-01-10 17:51 -------
Fixed.


-- 

hjl at lucon dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-01-10 17:51 -------
Subject: Bug 30424

Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jan 10 17:50:40 2007
New Revision: 120645

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120645
Log:
2007-01-10  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR libgcj/30424
        * sysdep/ia64/locks.h (read_barrier): New.
        (write_barrier): New.

Modified:
    trunk/libjava/ChangeLog
    trunk/libjava/sysdep/ia64/locks.h


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to work|                            |4.2.0
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[oliver at linux-kernel dot at]

------- Comment #7 from oliver at linux-kernel dot at  2007-04-10 15:44 -------
Same problem happens on alpha. read_barrier is not defined in sysdeps/locks.h.

Added read_barrier with a simple __sync_synchronize, but I guess this will not
work in real life... Just for testing... Can please check this someone?

Arg. Version is some Fedora Core(development): gcc-4.1.2-2007040.


-- 

oliver at linux-kernel dot at changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |oliver at linux-kernel dot
                   |                            |at


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-10 16:47 -------
I don't have an Alpha to test, but I can see read_barrier() in HEAD:

inline static void
read_barrier()
{
  __asm__ __volatile__("mb" : : : "memory");
}


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[oliver at linux-kernel dot at]

------- Comment #9 from oliver at linux-kernel dot at  2007-04-10 17:11 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> I don't have an Alpha to test, but I can see read_barrier() in HEAD:
> 
> inline static void
> read_barrier()
> {
>   __asm__ __volatile__("mb" : : : "memory");
> }
> 

OK and write_barrier() still is
inline static void
write_barrier()
{
  __asm__ __volatile__("wmb" : : : "memory");
}

Sorry for asking, but I don't want to do the big checkout now :-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-10 17:14 -------
I don't know what you're asking.  It's fixed in HEAD, and it's fixed in Fedora
development.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424

[Bug libgcj/30424] [4.3 regression] revision 120632 failed to build on ia64

[oliver at linux-kernel dot at]

------- Comment #11 from oliver at linux-kernel dot at  2007-04-10 17:23 -------
Andrew. It's OK. write_barrier() is fine in Fedora Development. But
read_barrier() is missing in libjava/sysdep/alpha/lock.h. Just forget it :-)
Thx!


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30424