Re: glibc 2.21 - Machine maintainers, please test your machines.

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 05:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Machine Maintainers,
>>>
>>> Please start testing your machines against glibc
>>> master.
>>>
>>> Please update the glibc 2.21 release page with your
>>> testing results:
>>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.21
>>>
>>> If nobody objects I want to cut the release as soon
>>
>> x32 failed to build:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17870
>
> Thanks, I'll look into this immediately.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
>
>

I am testing this and will check it in after testing it on
x32, x86-64 and ia32.


-- 
H.J.
---
diff --git a/nptl/sem_post.c b/nptl/sem_post.c
index 9162e4c..6e495ed 100644
--- a/nptl/sem_post.c
+++ b/nptl/sem_post.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ __new_sem_post (sem_t *sem)
      added tokens before (the release sequence includes atomic RMW operations
      by other threads).  */
   /* TODO Use atomic_fetch_add to make it scale better than a CAS loop?  */
-  unsigned long int d = atomic_load_relaxed (&isem->data);
+  uint64_t d = atomic_load_relaxed (&isem->data);
   do
     {
       if ((d & SEM_VALUE_MASK) == SEM_VALUE_MAX)
diff --git a/nptl/sem_waitcommon.c b/nptl/sem_waitcommon.c
index 96848d7..c60daa3 100644
--- a/nptl/sem_waitcommon.c
+++ b/nptl/sem_waitcommon.c
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ __sem_wait_cleanup (void *arg)

 #if __HAVE_64B_ATOMICS
   /* Stop being registered as a waiter.  See below for MO.  */
-  atomic_fetch_add_relaxed (&sem->data, -(1UL << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT));
+  atomic_fetch_add_relaxed (&sem->data, -((uint64_t) 1 << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT));
 #else
   __sem_wait_32_finish (sem);
 #endif
@@ -263,8 +263,8 @@ __new_sem_wait_slow (struct new_sem *sem, const
struct timespec *abstime)
 #if __HAVE_64B_ATOMICS
   /* Add a waiter.  Relaxed MO is sufficient because we can rely on the
      ordering provided by the RMW operations we use.  */
-  unsigned long d = atomic_fetch_add_relaxed (&sem->data,
-      1UL << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT);
+  uint64_t d = atomic_fetch_add_relaxed (&sem->data,
+      (uint64_t) 1 << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT);

   pthread_cleanup_push (__sem_wait_cleanup, sem);

@@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ __new_sem_wait_slow (struct new_sem *sem, const
struct timespec *abstime)
       err = -1;
       /* Stop being registered as a waiter.  */
       atomic_fetch_add_relaxed (&sem->data,
-  -(1UL << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT));
+  -((uint64_t) 1 << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT));
       break;
     }
   /* Relaxed MO is sufficient; see below.  */
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ __new_sem_wait_slow (struct new_sem *sem, const
struct timespec *abstime)
      up-to-date value; the futex_wait or the CAS perform the real
      work.  */
   if (atomic_compare_exchange_weak_acquire (&sem->data,
-      &d, d - 1 - (1UL << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT)))
+      &d, d - 1 - ((uint64_t) 1 << SEM_NWAITERS_SHIFT)))
     {
       err = 0;
       break;