Different behaviour of RTEMS in QEMU/i386 and SPARC
ralf.corsepius at rtems.org
Mon Oct 31 11:39:42 UTC 2011
On 10/31/2011 11:49 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 11:41 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Apart of this, RTEMS's paranoia's results should not be taken too
>> The code is known to be questionable.
>> Several years ago, several people, who can be considered very
>> about the detail being involved ]1], had recommended RTEMS to drop
>> this paranoia.
> It would be nice if someone can remember this discussion and provide a
> link to the archives.
Unfortunately, I don't. A brief google search also did not provide much
clues. It was on some GCC related list (or GCC's bugzilla).
IIRC, an RTEMS user had reported RTEMS paranoia was not providing the
expected results. When reporting this issue, some GCC devs stepped in
and begun tearing paranoia apart.
Answers were along the lines of "bad, outdated code", "non-portable",
"invalid testcase". The outcome had been "works sufficiently well for
RTEMS in many cases".
Also, I could bet, Joel had been involved.
More information about the users