I added clang 3.5 and clang 3.6 testing to a Breadwell system.
We got one new build failure, and a handful new check failures.
I suspect the steamroller failures are a real hardware compatibility
problem.
I suspect the build failure is due to plain (Intel NUC) hardware without
ECC, or Linux
ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
GMP triggers bugs in clang on every platform where we tried this
compiler.
It looks like it almost works on x86, except for failures with the
(obscure?) x32 ABI.
The clang on FreeBSD 10 miscompiles GMP on for some x86 CPU subtypes.
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Now I've found it (and reported
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23646 ). Note that the same (?)
instruction is spelled differently in the same file:
bc+ 12, 28, L(9)
vs.
blt+cr7, L(24)
(there is also a mix of
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
On powerpc-linux-gnu, clang complains about the bc+ instruction, and
indeed I can't find that in IBM's documentation.
https://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/ssw_aix_71/com.ibm.aix.alangref/idalangref_bcbr_inst.htm
(The + sign manipulates
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Marc Glisse wrote:
On powerpc-linux-gnu, clang complains about the bc+ instruction, and
indeed I can't find that in IBM's documentation. After removing
divrem_2.asm, it compiles fine and passes the testsuite.
Now I've found it (and reported
ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
Harsh against whom? The point is not to make a statement, but to make
it more likely that GMP works correctly for our users.
It's going to look very much like you're making a statement, whether or
not that's your intention.
Please don't
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Now I've found it (and reported
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23646 ). Note that the same (?)
instruction is spelled differently in the same file:
bc+ 12, 28, L(9)
vs.
blt+cr7, L(24)
Note that the former form
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Now I've found it (and reported
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23646 ). Note that the same (?)
instruction is spelled differently in the same file:
bc+ 12, 28, L(9)
vs.
blt+
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Now I've found it (and reported
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23646 ). Note that the same (?)
instruction is spelled differently in the same file:
bodr...@mail.dm.unipi.it writes:
Do we have any working configuration for the x32 ABI?
It works. We had testing of it on a Gentoo system until perhaps a year
ago.
The reason for the ivydeb32v7.gmplib.org-stat-clang-clang++:x32 failure
is that clang apparently accepts and ignores -mx32.
t...@gmplib.org (Torbjörn Granlund) writes:
GMP triggers bugs in clang on every platform where we tried this
compiler.
It looks like it almost works on x86, except for failures with the
(obscure?) x32 ABI.
BTW, it would be nice with an alternative test result page with
problematic platforms
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
GMP triggers bugs in clang on every platform where we tried this
compiler. Some configs work, though.
To see how bad it is, please take a look here:
https://gmplib.org/devel/tm-date.html
I think we would help our users by making it hard to use
Il Gio, 21 Maggio 2015 10:08 pm, Niels Möller ha scritto:
t...@gmplib.org (Torbjörn Granlund) writes:
GMP triggers bugs in clang on every platform where we tried this
compiler.
It looks like it almost works on x86, except for failures with the
(obscure?) x32 ABI.
Do we have any working
13 matches
Mail list logo
