Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754523AbZGTX6I (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:58:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752399AbZGTX6I (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:58:08 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:44970 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751583AbZGTX6H (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:58:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:56:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Marc Dionne cc: Krzysztof Oledzki , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , stable@kernel.org, lwn@lwn.net Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27.27 In-Reply-To: <4A650219.3060003@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20090720040655.GA11940@kroah.com> <4A645A45.9060509@ans.pl> <20090720151008.GC10015@suse.de> <4A650219.3060003@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1692 Lines: 38 On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Marc Dionne wrote: > > I might be seeing a slightly different bug, but in case it's helpful, the > behaviour here on Fedora rawhide with gcc-4.4.0-14.x86_64 and > binutils-2.19.51.0.11-27.fc12.x86_64 is that I get various .o files that come > out as completely empty files (or in one case as a precisely 64K sized file > that gives a "File format not recognized" error"), and the latest 2.6.31-rc > git can't be built at all. Hmm. This sounds more like the binutils bug that people had. Sounds like an assembler bug if the *.o file ends up being empty or at some fixed size. If it was cc1 that fails, I'd expect to not see an *.o file at all, since it didn't generate good assembly. In fact, your behavior sounds like the thing that produces the *.o files core-dumped or died for other reasons, and had a 64kB buffer that either got flushed or not. That would explain the "zero or exactly 64kB" size. It could be ccache too, of course. > If I replace -fno-strict-overflow with -fwrapv in Makefile everything builds > and runs fine. .. and this is just really really odd. If it was the cc1 front-end that does that with a bad optimization, I'd expect more visible turds. But on the other hand, if it's the binutils, then I don't see why -fwrapv would matter. Some front-end options get passed down to the assembler, but I would definitely not expect -fwrapv/-fno-strict-overflow to be one of those. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/