On 05/ 4/11 08:50 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2011-05-03 21:44, Volker Braun wrote:
I agree that sage-4.7 should compile with gcc-4.6.[01]. But why not
specifically excluding these two instead of an wildcard?
What if gcc 4.6.2 exhibits the same bug? I think the *safer* option is
to assume th
On 2011-05-03 21:44, Volker Braun wrote:
> I agree that sage-4.7 should compile with gcc-4.6.[01]. But why not
> specifically excluding these two instead of an wildcard?
I did this for cliquer because that gcc bug should be fixed, see #11227.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@
The *safest* option of them all is of course to never build with
optimizations. Its comparably easy to generate straightforward machine code,
the compiler bugs are invariably tied to the optimization process. Also, I
think that old bugs in the gcc bugzilla are not systematically tested
against
On 2011-05-03 21:44, Volker Braun wrote:
> I agree that sage-4.7 should compile with gcc-4.6.[01]. But why not
> specifically excluding these two instead of an wildcard?
What if gcc 4.6.2 exhibits the same bug? I think the *safer* option is
to assume the status-quo that the bug will not be fixed.
I agree that sage-4.7 should compile with gcc-4.6.[01]. But why not
specifically excluding these two instead of an wildcard?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more o
On 2011-05-03 17:23, Volker Braun wrote:
> I have a bad feeling about this. We both know that nobody is going to
> check whether its still necessary to downgrade optimizations by the time
> that, say, 4.6.5 rolls out.
Those bugs have been reported upstream to gcc, so if they get fixed, I
will get n
I have a bad feeling about this. We both know that nobody is going to check
whether its still necessary to downgrade optimizations by the time that,
say, 4.6.5 rolls out. IHMO it would be much better to use the compiler
wrapper and limit optimizations globally for specific compiler releases.
--
On 2011-05-03 15:43, Volker Braun wrote:
> Wait just because there may be a bug in 4.6.0 we disable optimizations
> for future gcc versions that may fix these?
If these future gcc versions are released, we can change the spkgs
accordingly. At least a pre-release version of gcc 4.6.1 still contain
Wait just because there may be a bug in 4.6.0 we disable optimizations for
future gcc versions that may fix these?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, v
On 2011-05-03 14:34, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> There are two blockers for sage-4.7 which need review, both are spkg
> patches:
>
> #11226: Sympow spkg fails with gcc 4.6.0
>
> #11278: singular 3-1-1-4.p8 fails on Mac OS X 10.4
Two more blocker tickets needing review, where a check for gcc version
There are two blockers for sage-4.7 which need review, both are spkg
patches:
#11226: Sympow spkg fails with gcc 4.6.0
#11278: singular 3-1-1-4.p8 fails on Mac OS X 10.4
Normally, these two tickets are the last obstacles for a sage-4.7 release.
Jeroen.
--
To post to this group, send an email
11 matches
Mail list logo
