Re: configure.in support for FreeBSD ia64/sparc64/powerpc

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Ulrich Mueller <address@hidden> writes:

  > >>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
  > 
  > > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:06:04 -0800 (PST), Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> 
wrote:
  > >> > Err, I think there's a misunderstanding here.  The src/alloc.c change
  > >> > is related to sparc64 not Solaris (not _only_ Solaris, that is):
  > >> 
  > >> >     --- a/src/alloc.c  Fri Oct 27 15:45:51 2006 +0000
  > >> >     +++ b/src/alloc.c  Sat Oct 28 01:49:45 2006 +0300
  > >> >     @@ -4560,7 +4560,11 @@ mark_stack ()
  > >> >           needed on ia64 too.  See mach_dep.c, where it also says 
inline
  > >> >           assembler doesn't work with relevant proprietary compilers.
  > >> >     */
  > >> >      #ifdef sparc
  > >> >     +#ifdef __sparc64__
  > >> >     +  asm ("flushw");
  > >> >     +#else
  > >> >        asm ("ta 3");
  > >> >     +#endif
  > >> >      #endif
  > >> >
  > >> > Now, I don't think anybody would argue that there are probably far more
  > >> > Solaris installations of sparc64 than FreeBSD ones.
  > >> 
  > >> Exactly, that code has been running for all other systems just fine for
  > >> many years.  Why the insistence to change without proper testing?
  > >> Why not just make the conditional
  > >> defined (__sparc64__) && defined (__FreeBSD__) ?
  > 
  > > My impression from the original Gentoo bug <http://bugs.gentoo.org/159584>
  > > is that this affects Linux too,
  > 
  > Sparc/Linux is fine, with or without the patch. Looks like both
  > "flushw" and "ta 3" work there.
  > 
  > > so making the code depend on __FreeBSD__ doesn't solve Ulrich's
  > > original problem.
  > 
  > It does, in fact. But testing for the OS still looks wrong to me,
  > since it is a question of a machine instruction implemented for
  > SPARC-V9, but not for earlier CPUs.

Or it's a question of FreeBSD not providing an implementation for the
"ta 3" trap?