> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Lord [mailto:lord@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:09 AM
>
> Ranslam, Robert E wrote:
> > FYI:
> > Its also in the IXDP425 as well as the IQ80321. These are two
> > completely different boards the only thing in common really is the
> > Xscale core.
> >
> > Greg Ungerer posted a patch that I echoed. One problem is that is
> > appears to be and issue with a calculation. The comment seems to
> > indicate that the variable used should be 'namelen' but instead is
> > 'count'
>
> What patch? please forward it here.
>
Vinesh posted.
> >
> > One thing to consider here - the x86 is Little endian. We
> are BE on the
> > IXP425
> >
>
>
> XFS runs fine on big endian hardware, that is where it was developed.
> This is more likely to be a problem in the gcc code generation on
> the xscale. It would not be the first time that xfs has pushed gcc
> over the edge. There is a lot of 64 bit stuff inside xfs, and we have
> seen gcc get very confused about what is in which register.
>
> Steve
>
Thanks! That alleviated one of my concerns...
Ok, so we may need to 'fixup' the code is small places to temporarily
work around compiler/toolchain issues. No sure what/where those would
be yet - maybe the patch is the only place where this is required. I
guess first thing is - Does the patch actually address a code issue? Or
is the tool chain generating the wrong code? What should the
calculation the patch 'fixes-up' really result in?
RR
|