On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:58:13AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 03/28/2018 06:10 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, is this hardware limitation something that is likely to affect other > > packages? Is there something we could look for in how they consume > > atomic types to tell? I would hate for us to ship something else that is > > subject to this problem. > > There is lots of fingerpointing, but no clear technical cause. > > We know that the (updated) i386 ABI is buggy in the sense that it does not > provide 8-byte alignment for 64-bit values (even if you use C11 _Atomic), > and the Intel manual says that the CMPXCHG8B instructions provides atomicity > for 8-byte-aligned memory locations only. But it's not clear if this is the > cause of the observed problems. > > Note that while GCC produces broken code, this is actually an ABI bug, and > we cannot change struct layout rules for long long retroactively. Maybe we > could for _Atomic long long, but that would need a lengthy investigation, > and I strongly believe that everyone is better off if the time is spent on > improving 64-bit architectures. Does it mean that the bug was here for the last 23 years? And now this became a problem? -- Tomasz Torcz RIP is irrevelant. Spoofing is futile. xmpp: zdzichubg@xxxxxxxxx Your routes will be aggreggated. -- Alex Yuriev _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
