March 29, 2018 12:06 PM, "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 16:24 Florian Weimer, <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 03/28/2018 08:48 PM, Tomasz Torcz 👁️ wrote: >> >>>> 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? >> >> I'm not sure how you came up with the duration. The bug is most >> certainly much younger than that, probably introduced along with the new >> atomic intrinsics in a late GCC 4.8.x release. Arguably, it is a real >> bug only for _Atomic long long members. > > Probably referring to the age of the 389-ds code base which dates all the way back to Netscape > Directory Server i686 become available in 1995. The bug in 389ds is serious enough to condemn the whole architecture, so what exactly happened? 1) 389ds was always broken on i686 (and no-one noticed that before?) 2) there was some code added to 389ds later, code which triggered the bug? (could it be reverted then?) 3) there was code added to toolchain (GCC) which started producing broken code in 389? (could the change in GCC be reverted/ repaired?) 4) … ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending i686, it should have been relegated to the museum long ago. But I feel uneasy when there is some bug marking the whole architecture as broken. We were running GCC-compiled 389ds on i686 for years, does it mean we trusted broken code to manage our identity? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
