From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 30 18:47:31 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9860F9EC; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F7B3279A; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 808BFB95E; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:47:30 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Hans Petter Selasky Subject: Re: svn commit: r268055 - head/sys/sys Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:47:21 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.4-CBSD-20140415; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201406301811.s5UIBMxh036571@svn.freebsd.org> <201406301437.08687.jhb@freebsd.org> <53B1AFDE.30104@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <53B1AFDE.30104@selasky.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201406301447.21620.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:47:31 -0000 On Monday, June 30, 2014 2:43:42 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 06/30/14 20:37, John Baldwin wrote: > > Reindenting the whitespace made this diff harder to read. Why hasn't this > > been a problem before on powerpc64? > > Hi, > > This has not been a problem before, because producers of DATA_SET()'s > were using syntax along these lines: > > static int test2; > static int test3; > > DATA_SET(test, test2); > DATA_SET(test, test3); > > Now if you change this simple code to: > > static int test2; > int test3; > > DATA_SET(test, test2); > DATA_SET(test, test3); > > It breaks on powerpc64. Should be very easy to reproduce. > > The problem with SYSCTL's is that some are global and some are not. > Before an indirect pointer was hiding this problem from appearing. > > Do you see? Or do you want me to explain more. Ahh, ok. Seems odd that this sort of thing would be ppc64-specific however. -- John Baldwin