Bug#840458: linbox: FTBFS on i386: illegal instruction in test-{cra, charpoly}

2016-11-29 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:58:53PM +, Tobias Hansen wrote: >... > (I'm not sure if some of these flags (mmx, sse ?) are allowed > on i386 and didn't find that info. Ximin, do you know this?) None of these is allowed on i386. The baseline for i386 in stretch is the Pentium Pro, that has

Bug#840458: linbox: FTBFS on i386: illegal instruction in test-{cra, charpoly}

2016-11-29 Thread Tobias Hansen
On 11/29/2016 03:53 PM, Doug Torrance wrote: > Control: reassign -1 src:givaro > > On 11/29/2016 09:58 AM, Tobias Hansen wrote: >> I think I figured out at least the test failures with "Illegal >> instruction" on i386. The problem is that givaro is built using cpu >> extensions that are not

Bug#840458: linbox: FTBFS on i386: illegal instruction in test-{cra, charpoly}

2016-11-29 Thread Doug Torrance
Control: reassign -1 src:givaro On 11/29/2016 09:58 AM, Tobias Hansen wrote: I think I figured out at least the test failures with "Illegal instruction" on i386. The problem is that givaro is built using cpu extensions that are not allowed. Jerome figured out in [1] that the problem happens

Bug#840458: linbox: FTBFS on i386: illegal instruction in test-{cra, charpoly}

2016-11-29 Thread Tobias Hansen
Hi Doug, I think I figured out at least the test failures with "Illegal instruction" on i386. The problem is that givaro is built using cpu extensions that are not allowed. Jerome figured out in [1] that the problem happens when givaro code is called. And sure enough: objdump -S

Bug#840458: linbox: FTBFS on i386: illegal instruction in test-{cra, charpoly}

2016-10-11 Thread Aaron M. Ucko
Source: linbox Version: 1.4.2-1 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) The i386 build of linbox failed: ../build-aux/test-driver: line 107: 16085 Illegal instruction "$@" > $log_file 2>&1 FAIL: test-cra [...]