Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
Good question! That's the only place I've seen the illegal
instruction but of course GMP (libgmp?) might be the fuse that's
protecting the next illegal instruction in some other module.
can you check 2.7.39-2 ?
A quick test ran fine! What did y
Paul Scott wrote:
Good question! That's the only place I've seen the illegal instruction
but of course GMP (libgmp?) might be the fuse that's protecting the next
illegal instruction in some other module.
can you check 2.7.39-2 ?
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
I'm compiling GMP with -march=i386
(Why) only GMP?
Good question! That's the only place I've seen the illegal instruction
but of course GMP (libgmp?) might be the fuse that's protecting the next
illegal instruction in some other
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> I'm compiling GMP with -march=i386
(Why) only GMP?
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
___
lilypond-devel maili
Paul Scott wrote:
Will 2.8 GUB be compiled with -march=pentiumpro?
I'm compiling GMP with -march=i386, but for some reason that doesn't
work for you. I asked on the GMP list, but got no response. I'll try
again with i386 in the host configuration, but no guarantees given.
--
Han-Wen Nie
Will 2.8 GUB be compiled with -march=pentiumpro?
Thanks,
Paul Scott
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
