xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stress test on ppc

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
From: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 1 Dec 2000 07:55:07 GMT
Distribution: local
Organization: innominate AG, Berlin, Germany
References: <news2mail-8uecj0$i5e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10011261336.ZM166460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <news2mail-8vt5ub$dhv$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10011281048.ZM165042@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <news2mail-9001u3$n0b$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10011290940.ZM169800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <news2mail-902hr6$307$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10011301040.ZM164128@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <news2mail-90550o$3u0$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10012010904.ZM174461@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.0-XFS-test10 (i686))
"Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> as Russell pointed out, this is really odd - some fields
> are displayed correctly, others are off with the pixies.
> I can't see any obvious pattern either... the only thing
> I can think of is that xfs_db is doing some deep and
> meaningful bit shifting to come up with these numbers -
> perhaps this is a compiler issue (we had problems before
> with the xfs_high/lowbit routines on non-2.91.66 compilers,
> perhaps this is true on ppc also - its probably worthwhile
> trying that compiler to build userspace too if you can).

i'll try to find or maybe build an egcs to try this out

t

-- 
thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
technical director                                       innominate AG
clustering & security                             the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13   fax: -77             http://www.innominate.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>