Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:05:57 -0700 "Kaveh R. Ghazi" wrote: > From: "Dave Korn" > > > Dave Korn wrote: > > > >> Attached allowed it to build, > > > > And with that patch: > > > >> === > >> All 45 tests passed > >> === > > Thanks Dave! > > This MPC release may

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

A prerelease tarball of the upcoming MPC 0.7 is available here: http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.7-dev.tar.gz Hi, On powerpc-apple-darwin8 (32b): using mpfr-2.4.1, gmp-4.3.1 === All 45 tests passed === Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8 Configured wi

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

Kaveh, mpc-0.7-dev passed the 45 tests on i686-apple-darwin9 when compiled with gcc version 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5493). Cheers Dominique

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

Hello Kaveh, Sorry for the delay in this primary platform report; just saw the second call today. In all cases below, installed from the FreeBSD ports system with the system compiler (based upon GNU 4.2.1): /usr/ports/math/libgmp4 [4.3.1] /usr/ports/math/mpfr [2.4.1] [And, for the rec

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

Hello! A prerelease tarball of the upcoming MPC 0.7 is available here: http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.7-dev.tar.gz Please help test it for portability and bugs by downloading and compiling it on systems you have access to. I'd like a report to contain your target triplet and

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

From: "Dave Korn" Dave Korn wrote: Attached allowed it to build, And with that patch: === All 45 tests passed === Thanks Dave! This MPC release may happen early next week. Anyone else have success results, problems or portability patches? -

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

Dave Korn wrote: > Attached allowed it to build, And with that patch: > === > All 45 tests passed > === cheers, DaveK

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

Dave Korn wrote: > Fell at the first hurdle for me: > > gcc-4 -shared-libgcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > -p > edantic -Wall -Wextra -Werror -O2 -pipe -MT inp_str.lo -MD -MP -MF > .deps/inp_str > .Tpo -c inp_str.c -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC -o .libs/inp_str.o > cc1: war

Re: Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > Hello, > > A prerelease tarball of the upcoming MPC 0.7 is available here: > http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.7-dev.tar.gz > > Please help test it for portability and bugs by downloading and compiling > it on systems you have access to. Fell at the first

Call for testers: MPC 0.7 prerelease tarball

Hello, A prerelease tarball of the upcoming MPC 0.7 is available here: http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.7-dev.tar.gz Please help test it for portability and bugs by downloading and compiling it on systems you have access to. I'd like a report to contain your target triplet and th

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

* Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote on Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 05:32:14PM CEST: > > I think we're just missing AIX5.2. Ralf you did that last time for the > svn tarball. Would you please repeat your testing with mpc-0.6? Sorry for the delay. Issues on AIX 5.2: - This time, I had an old version of mpc install

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" > >> I've been relaying the messages, (but I haven't seen the MPC webpage >> updated to reflect this yet). > > Okay it's updated, we've got a pretty comprehensive list of platforms. > > http://www.multiprecision.org/index.php?prog=mpc&page=platform

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" I've been relaying the messages, (but I haven't seen the MPC webpage updated to reflect this yet). Okay it's updated, we've got a pretty comprehensive list of platforms. http://www.multiprecision.org/index.php?prog=mpc&page=platforms Thanks everyone for your test resu

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Gerald Pfeifer" On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Andreas Tobler wrote: I've cc'ed others who have access to the platforms in question based on GCC test results. Please help if you can. - powerpc-apple-darwin9.6.0 gcc-4.5.0 gmp-4.2.2 mpfr-2.3.1 ok. - sparc-sun-solaris2.10 gcc-4.4 gmp-4.2.2 mpfr-2.

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Andreas Tobler wrote: >>> I've cc'ed others who have access to the platforms in question based on >>> GCC test results. Please help if you can. >> >> - powerpc-apple-darwin9.6.0 gcc-4.5.0 gmp-4.2.2 mpfr-2.3.1 ok. >> - sparc-sun-solaris2.10 gcc-4.4 gmp-4.2.2 mpfr-2.3.1 ok >> -

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Built with disable-shared: - - i686-pc-mingw32 gcc-4.4.0 gmp-4.2.4 mpfr-2.4.1 ok - - i686-pc-cygwin gcc-4.4.0 gmp-4.2.4 mpfr-2.4.1 ok Rainer -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enig

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

Andreas Tobler wrote: Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: And report your results along with the versions of target triplet/compiler/gmp/mpfr that you used. I've cc'ed others who have access to the platforms in question based on GCC test results. Please help if you can. - powerpc-apple-darwin9.6.0 gcc-4

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: And report your results along with the versions of target triplet/compiler/gmp/mpfr that you used. I've cc'ed others who have access to the platforms in question based on GCC test results. Please help if you can. - powerpc-apple-darwin9.6.0 gcc-4.5.0 gmp-4.2.2 mpfr-2.3

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

> I.e. we need (primaries) x86-freebsd, x86-darwin, sparc-solaris2.10 and > (secondaries) hppa-hpux11, ppc-aix5.2, ppc-darwin, x86-mingw32 and > s390-linux-gnu. I tested on hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.11, hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, ia64-hp-hpux11.23, and ia64-debian-linux-gnu using GCC 4.2.1, MPFR 2.3.1, and GMP

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

Hi, > I.e. we need (primaries) x86-freebsd, x86-darwin, sparc-solaris2.10 and > (secondaries) hppa-hpux11, ppc-aix5.2, ppc-darwin, x86-mingw32 and > s390-linux-gnu. I've tested with: gmp-4.2.2-7 (fedora core 9) mpfr-2.4.1 (vanilla) gcc 4.3.2 mpc-0.6 The mpc testsuite is clean on s390-linux-

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Janis Johnson" I get the failure Richard mentioned when I use -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector but no failures without those options. This is on powerpc64-linux (but defaulting to -m32) with: RHEL 5.3 GCC 4.3.2 GMP 4.2.4 MPFR 2.4.1 MPC 0.6 Okay the -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 bug has b

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Jakub Jelinek" man 3p sprintf says: If copying takes place between objects that overlap as a result of a call to sprintf() or snprintf(), the results are undefined. ISO C99 7.19.6.6 has similar wording: If copying takes place between objects that overlap, the behavior is undefined

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:55:29PM -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > From: "Marc Glisse" > >This could be related to a call to sprintf(str,...,str,...), which > >according to the doc is undefined behaviour. > > Doc? I don't see it in the man page. Got a url? man 3p sprintf says: If copying take

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Marc Glisse" This could be related to a call to sprintf(str,...,str,...), which according to the doc is undefined behaviour. Doc? I don't see it in the man page. Got a url?

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: Ah, that helps. I was able to reproduce the failure using just -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. However when I used both -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 *and* -fstack-protector the error went away again. I'm using gcc-4.1.2 if that matters, perhaps there's a bug in -fstac

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Janis Johnson" Same behavior with openSUSE 11.1 (glibc 2.9, gcc 4.3.2, gmp 4.2.3, mpfr 2.3.2). Note that I build with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector. I get the failure Richard mentioned when I use -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector but no failures without those options. Th

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 23:21 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi > wrote: > > From: "Richard Guenther" > > > >> I tested on openSUSE Factory which currently has gcc 4.3.3, gmp 4.2.3, > >> mpfr 2.4.1 and some pre-2.10 glibc. > > > > I tried with vanilla

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > From: "Richard Guenther" > >> I tested on openSUSE Factory which currently has gcc 4.3.3, gmp 4.2.3, >> mpfr 2.4.1 and some pre-2.10 glibc. > > I tried with vanilla mpfr-2.4.1 and gmp-4.2.3, and mpc still passed all it's > tests on gcc14.  

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Richard Guenther" I tested on openSUSE Factory which currently has gcc 4.3.3, gmp 4.2.3, mpfr 2.4.1 and some pre-2.10 glibc. I tried with vanilla mpfr-2.4.1 and gmp-4.2.3, and mpc still passed all it's tests on gcc14. Would it be fair to suspect something in your prerelease glibc?

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > From: "Richard Guenther" >> >> I get 1 failure on linux-{i586,x86_64,ppc,ppc64,ia64,s390,s390x} >> platforms: >> >> inp_str.c:131: MPC assertion failed: n == nread >> /bin/sh: line 4:  2347 Aborted                 (core dumped) ${dir}$tst >

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

From: "Richard Guenther" I get 1 failure on linux-{i586,x86_64,ppc,ppc64,ia64,s390,s390x} platforms: inp_str.c:131: MPC assertion failed: n == nread /bin/sh: line 4: 2347 Aborted (core dumped) ${dir}$tst FAIL: tio_str Richard. Thanks for the thorough testing! I don't get

Re: Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > Thanks to everyone who tested the prerelease snashot of MPC.  The > maintainers have now released mpc-0.6 which incorporates hopefully > everyone's feedback and testing results. > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/mpc-discuss/2009-Apri

Call for testers: MPC-0.6 released

Thanks to everyone who tested the prerelease snashot of MPC. The maintainers have now released mpc-0.6 which incorporates hopefully everyone's feedback and testing results. http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/mpc-discuss/2009-April/000176.html The MPC developers have made a concerted effort

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again (was: Re: Call for testers, ppc64-linux)

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:55:17 +0200 >> From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Nope, not if it's a (MINUS (symbol_ref sym2) (symbol_ref sym1)). > *If* valid, that's a constant expression and *should* be wrapped >

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again (was: Re: Call for testers, ppc64-linux)

> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:55:17 +0200 > From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I got negative feedback on that patch (no, not regression > > results :) on IRC from David Edelsohn and understandably you > > held off your testing because of this, as for one the patch > > affects the rs6000 ba

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again (was: Re: Call for testers, ppc64-linux)

> I got negative feedback on that patch (no, not regression > results :) on IRC from David Edelsohn and understandably you > held off your testing because of this, as for one the patch > affects the rs6000 backend. What kind of negative feedback? > For CRIS (as well as other targets IIUC) the ca

Call for Testers: VTA debug info is usable

I've just installed a number of patches to var-tracking-assignments-branch and var-tracking-assignments-4_3-branch, which bring them to passing compare-debug for all object files in both the bootstrapped compiler and the target libraries on x86_64-linux-gnu, i686-linux-gnu and ppc64-linux-gnu with

Re: call for testers!

> I guess cc1 does use this file, so comparing the two cc1 executables > would fail too; but does it work if -pipe is used? I added -pipe to t-pa and t-pa64 and this bootstraps successfully on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, respectively. However, comparison of cc1 fails in both ca

Re: call for testers!

I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means that lots of people have tri

Re: call for testers!

Geoffrey Keating wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means that

Re: call for testers!

> That's probably a relative of the bug that occurs on Darwin. It ought > to be possible to avoid it by using -pipe in TARGET_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS; > could you try that? (I'd like to think that adding -pipe would always > be safe, but who knows what madness might lurk in the HPUX > assembler...) T

Re: call for testers!

On 04/04/2005, at 4:31 PM, John David Anglin wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I

Re: HPUX/HPPA build broken (was Re: call for testers!)

> I didn't even have an old bootstrap of the trunk for HP-UX; I tried to do > one and it died with > > ./xgcc -B./ -B/u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/bin/ -isystem > /u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/include -isystem > /u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/sys-include

HPUX/HPPA build broken (was Re: call for testers!)

I wrote: > >I'll check HP-UX/HPPA and let you know; since I didn't have a recent > >bootstrap of the trunk it will take a bit. On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Even a relatively old bootstrap will do, assembler/linker > nondeterminism is what I'm really concern

Re: call for testers!

> I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, > cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in > is on their > bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means > that lots of peopl

Re: call for testers!

On 04/04/2005, at 3:36 PM, Joe Buck wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:02PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on

Re: call for testers!

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:02PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, > cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in > is on their > bootstrap. I'll check HP

Re: call for testers!

> Geoffrey Keating writes: Geoff> The only work involved, assuming you already have a bootstrapped tree, Geoff> would be to apply the patch and run 'make quickstrap' or even 'make Geoff> gnucompare'; and possibly a single 'cmp' command. This should take Geoff> about 1 minute. make

call for testers!

I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means that lots of people have tri