Here is another reference to a bug in comparison of zero byte arrays
with memcmp:
http://www.nabble.com/Bug-in-boot-code-memcmp-with-zero-length-tt20039621.html
Bill.
2009/4/18 Bill Hart :
> This seems relevant:
>
> http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-bugs/2007-August/000813.html
>
> The gcc ve
This seems relevant:
http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-bugs/2007-August/000813.html
The gcc version is too close to be a coincidence I think.
Bill.
2009/4/18 Jason Moxham :
>
> On Saturday 18 April 2009 06:36:13 mabshoff wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 10:32 pm, Jason Moxham wrote:
>> > On Saturday 18
On Saturday 18 April 2009 06:36:13 mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:32 pm, Jason Moxham wrote:
> > On Saturday 18 April 2009 05:52:08 Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
>
> > > As got_count is 0 then it is comparing two length 0 arrays and says
> > > they are not equal. So this appears to be a problem with mem
We could special case it in the test code, I suppose. But given the
number of systems this test code passes on, it is pretty unusual.
Perhaps Burcin could valgrind the test for us (you only need to run
the individual test t-export not the whole of make check). The
t-export test function gets buil
On Apr 17, 10:32 pm, Jason Moxham wrote:
> On Saturday 18 April 2009 05:52:08 Bill Hart wrote:
> > As got_count is 0 then it is comparing two length 0 arrays and says
> > they are not equal. So this appears to be a problem with memcmp which
> > is just a C library function.
>
> memcmp may no
On Saturday 18 April 2009 05:52:08 Bill Hart wrote:
> Here is the relevant line of code:
>
> if (memcmp (got_data, data[i].want_data, got_count * data[i].size) != 0)
> {
> printf ("wrong result data\n");
> error = 1;
> }
>
> As got_count is 0 the
Here is the relevant line of code:
if (memcmp (got_data, data[i].want_data, got_count * data[i].size) != 0)
{
printf ("wrong result data\n");
error = 1;
}
As got_count is 0 then it is comparing two length 0 arrays and says
they are not equal. S
I would also be interested if GMP 4.2.1 and 4.3.0 passes/fails this
test on this machine. I don't see that we've done anything differently
for this function.
Bill.
2009/4/17 Jason Moxham :
>
>
> Have you tried building sage with gmp , does that pass the tests?
>
> I've tested mpir-0.9,1.0 and 1.
On Apr 17, 4:37 am, Jason Moxham wrote:
> Have you tried building sage with gmp , does that pass the tests?
Since we have switched away from GMP I doubt he did it and since MPIR
1.1 works I don't think it matters too much for Sage at least since we
will update today :). The box did build the v
Have you tried building sage with gmp , does that pass the tests?
I've tested mpir-0.9,1.0 and 1.1 on a linux Pentium D with no problems ,
although it was with a more modern compiler , I think gcc-4.2.4
Note: your Pentium is running as 64 bit
Does it only bomb out when sage builds it ?
Jason
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:01:36 +0200
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
> mabshoff wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:35 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> > > I got the following error while building Sage-3.4.1.rc3 on my 32-bit
> > > Pentium D workstation (prescott?):
> >
> >
Hi,
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:35 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > I got the following error while building Sage-3.4.1.rc3 on my 32-bit
> > Pentium D workstation (prescott?):
>
> For the record: That version of Sage ships MPIR 1.0.rc8, 3.4.1.rc4
> wi
On Apr 17, 1:35 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Burcin,
> I got the following error while building Sage-3.4.1.rc3 on my 32-bit Pentium
> D workstation (prescott?):
For the record: That version of Sage ships MPIR 1.0.rc8, 3.4.1.rc4
will ship MPIR 1.1, so no worries.
> Let me know if you
13 matches
Mail list logo
