http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #24 from vincenzo Innocente <vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch> ---
ok, modified to ">="
taskset -c 0-31 gdb ./affinity-1.exe
GNU gdb (GDB) Red Hat Enterprise Linux (7.2-60.el6_4.1)
(gdb) b
/home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c:179
Breakpoint 1 at 0x400d5f: file
/home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c, line
179.
(gdb) run
Breakpoint 1, main () at
/home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c:181
181 /home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c:
No such file or directory.
in /home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c
Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install
glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.4.x86_64
(gdb) print contig_cpucount
$1 = 32
and then spawn etc
but
taskset -c 24-31 gdb ./affinity-1.exe
Breakpoint 1, main () at
/home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c:181
181 /home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c:
No such file or directory.
in /home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c
Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install
glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.4.x86_64
(gdb) print contig_cpucount
$1 = 0
I see anyhow where contig_cpucount is set.
up to you to generalize the test…
v.
On 7 Oct, 2013, at 2:16 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
>
> --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Ah, right, obviously I meant
> --- libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c 2013-10-07 09:31:53.884695701
> +0200
> +++ libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c 2013-10-07 14:09:52.475331358
> +0200
> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ main ()
> int test_places = 0;
>
> #ifdef DO_FORK
> - if (env_places == NULL && contig_cpucount == 8 && test_false
> + if (env_places == NULL && contig_cpucount >= 8 && test_false
> && getenv ("GOMP_AFFINITY") == NULL)
> {
> int i, j, status;
> (the other spot already correctly uses >= 8 - all the testcase cares about is
> that the first 8 logical CPUs can be used for affinity).
> That answers the not seeing fork case, but if it doesn't print any verified
> lines even with that, there would be some other issue.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.
--
Il est bon de suivre sa pente, pourvu que ce soit en montant.
A.G.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vin60/1320965757/
