On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:03:55AM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > > > Shouldn't there also be a fix for this powerpc issue? > > > > > > There was a working version, but it was not very clean. We couldn't agree > > > on the path forward for powerpc, so we are hoping to ship the fix to x86 (and > > > s390?) first [1]. > > > > Sorry for coming in late, I was on leave so I missed a lot of the > > discussions on previous versions. The decision to leave powerpc broken > > wasn't clear from reading the commit message. The bug is mentioned, and > > the fix is implied, but surprisingly there's no fix. > > > > I agree that the powerpc fix should be in a separate patch, but I still > > don't feel comfortable merging the x86 fix without the corresponding > > powerpc fix. > > > > powerpc is a major arch and not a second-class citizen. If we don't fix > > it now then it'll probably never get fixed until it blows up in the real > > world. > > > > For powerpc, instead of clearing, how about just "fixing" the warning > > site, something like so (untested)? > > This version looks reasonable to me. Ok, I'll run it through testing and work up a proper patch. I just noticed the one I posted has a major bug thanks to restore_r2()'s surprising return semantics. -- Josh
