>> Following up on my end: I've reported the 0.10.2 test failure to
>> ppl-devel, also observing that gmp vs gmp5 makes no difference in the
>> test results. Since ppl development seems focused on 0.11+, I kind of
>> doubt any fixes would come to 0.10.
>>
>> Jack, would it be acceptable for me to
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 09:03:10PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:36:44PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:28:04AM -0400, David Fang wrote:
>> It was originally thought that the failure was due to 10.5 using
>> gcc-4.0, but the test still fail
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:36:44PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:28:04AM -0400, David Fang wrote:
> It was originally thought that the failure was due to 10.5 using
> gcc-4.0, but the test still fails the same way with revision -4 which
> forces gcc-4.2.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/23/11 9:10 AM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
> expected_optima obtained_optima
> --- expected_optima 2011-03-22 21:57:54.0 -0400
> +++ obtained_optima 2011-03-22 21:57:54.0 -0400
> @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
> -Optimum value: -3
> -Opt
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:36:44PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:28:04AM -0400, David Fang wrote:
It was originally thought that the failure was due to 10.5 using
gcc-4.0, but the test still fails the same way with revision -4 which
forces gcc-4.2.
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:28:04AM -0400, David Fang wrote:
>>> It was originally thought that the failure was due to 10.5 using
>>> gcc-4.0, but the test still fails the same way with revision -4 which
>>> forces gcc-4.2.
>>>
>>> For the record, ppl9-0.11.2-1 does pass tests OK. Would it make s
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:28:04AM -0400, David Fang wrote:
>> It was originally thought that the failure was due to 10.5 using
>> gcc-4.0, but the test still fails the same way with revision -4 which
>> forces gcc-4.2.
>>
>> For the record, ppl9-0.11.2-1 does pass tests OK. Would it make sense
> It was originally thought that the failure was due to 10.5 using gcc-4.0, but
> the test still fails the same way with revision -4 which forces gcc-4.2.
>
> For the record, ppl9-0.11.2-1 does pass tests OK. Would it make sense to
> update gcc-4(4/5) to use ppl9?
Jack and I recently discussed
I confirm these findings, I also tried to build vs. gmp5 and got the same
results. I need to report these upstream.
Oddly enough. The 'thorough' tests pass cleanly on powerpc-darwin8
(about 4 days run-time).
Fang
> In the process of building gcc45, ppl-0.10.2-4 on 10.5/i386 fails during
> te
In the process of building gcc45, ppl-0.10.2-4 on 10.5/i386 fails during
tests with this error (dmacks seems to have gotten the exact same
failure on 10.6/i386):
echo "***" ./ppl_lpsol -s -p1 -c -oobtained "-n modglob.mps" >>obtained
./ppl_lpsol -s -p1 -c -oobtained -n
../../../demos/ppl_lpsol/
10 matches
Mail list logo
