On 1/29/09, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Case,
>
> thank you, that would be very helpful.
>
> I have just finished building and testing MPIR on cygwin. Apart from a
> warning about undefined symbols in the library (it didn't specify what
> they were), it built and passed make check just fine, even with
>
On Friday 30 January 2009 04:11:04 Bill Hart wrote:
> For this one I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that the clztab
> is wrong when you specify --host=586 on an Athlon, or there's some
> issue with arithmetic shifts.
>
host=pentiummmx passes
Do we still test on a real plain pentium? , if
On Friday 30 January 2009 04:07:04 Bill Hart wrote:
> I'm not sure. Who would select --host=386 on an athlon?
>
I did :)
> Also, the symbol that it says is missing, doesn't seem to exist
> anywhere in MPIR. It's probably something to do with the kernel or
> compiler on that machine.
>
Yeah , yo
2009/1/30 :
>
> On Thursday 29 January 2009 17:56:47 Bill Hart wrote:
>> The fat binary support on x86_64 is now fixed.
>
> Nice one
>
>>
>> I fixed the issue with fat binaries on x86_64 machines with ABI = 32.
>> Hopefully this also fixes it for cygwin and mingw. But it takes over
>> 1.5 hours t
For this one I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that the clztab
is wrong when you specify --host=586 on an Athlon, or there's some
issue with arithmetic shifts.
It's not clear to me that this is a meaningful failure.
If any of these machines fail without specifying a host different to
the o
I'm not sure. Who would select --host=386 on an athlon?
Also, the symbol that it says is missing, doesn't seem to exist
anywhere in MPIR. It's probably something to do with the kernel or
compiler on that machine.
Bill.
2009/1/30 :
>
> On Friday 30 January 2009 03:13:25 ja...@njkfrudils.plus.co
On Friday 30 January 2009 03:22:28 ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> On Friday 30 January 2009 03:13:25 ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 January 2009 17:56:47 Bill Hart wrote:
> > > The fat binary support on x86_64 is now fixed.
> >
> > Nice one
> >
> > > I fixed the issue with
On Friday 30 January 2009 03:13:25 ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> On Thursday 29 January 2009 17:56:47 Bill Hart wrote:
> > The fat binary support on x86_64 is now fixed.
>
> Nice one
>
> > I fixed the issue with fat binaries on x86_64 machines with ABI = 32.
> > Hopefully this also fixes it f
On Thursday 29 January 2009 17:56:47 Bill Hart wrote:
> The fat binary support on x86_64 is now fixed.
Nice one
>
> I fixed the issue with fat binaries on x86_64 machines with ABI = 32.
> Hopefully this also fixes it for cygwin and mingw. But it takes over
> 1.5 hours to build under cygwin (make
Case,
thank you, that would be very helpful.
I have just finished building and testing MPIR on cygwin. Apart from a
warning about undefined symbols in the library (it didn't specify what
they were), it built and passed make check just fine, even with
--enable-fat.
With regard to the demos issue
Bill,
I can test a mingw32 build this evening. I just need to work around
the demos issue. I'll compile on a few other platforms, too.
Case
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> The fat binary support on x86_64 is now fixed.
>
> I fixed the issue with fat binaries on x86_64 ma
The fat binary support on x86_64 is now fixed.
I fixed the issue with fat binaries on x86_64 machines with ABI = 32.
Hopefully this also fixes it for cygwin and mingw. But it takes over
1.5 hours to build under cygwin (make completes successfully), however
I didn't get through make check because
12 matches
Mail list logo
