> > What isn't clear is where that is run. I decided that I will take your
> > approach and try to follow the magic incantations to the very
> letter. OKay,
> > sort of. I may expand on the CFLAGS just a little bit and I have to
> assume,
> > in the absence of any data, that I shall run these "c
> On 11 November 2012 21:57, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > Here is what I did with gmp :
> >
> > $ ls $SRC/gmp*
> > /usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.bz2
> >
> > $ /opt/schily/bin/star -x -bz -xdir -xdot -U -fs=16m
> > file=/usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.
I had sent this to the wrong maillist I think. Yet another error. :-\
In any case .. here it is :
---
Subject:gcc 4.2.3 : make: *** [bootstrap] Error 2
From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Given that the set of posted solaris test results for trunk during the
> last four months barely requires two hands:
>
> 2008-01
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-01/msg01474.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
A small request.
Can the md5 sum hash for the various release files be published at the
main GCC release pages ?
If we look at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/ there is no md5 sum there
and while I can find that data at a mirror thus :
ftp://ftp.mirrorservice.org/sites/sources.redhat.com/pub/gcc/relea
d and then tested with high resolution timers and perhaps we
can compare notes.
Dennis Clarke
from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
> with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 138152
Would be nice to have md5 sums there also
$ /opt/csw/bin/openssl md5 gcc-4.4-20080725.tar.bz2
MD5(gcc-4.4-20080725.tar.bz2)= 865deaea79c12635f9a9b92937df8d41
etc etc
Dennis Clarke
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:56:57PM +0200, Agner Fog wrote:
>> >2008/7/26 Agner Fog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>I have libc version 2.7. Can't find version 2.8
>> >It's in Fedora 9, I have no idea why the source isn't dire
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> also, IMO, the NEWS sections says nothing useful to any human.
>>
>
> but, *some* humans like to click on the first (download) link on top.
where ?
It sa
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote on 28 July 2008 18:54:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Eus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ho!
>
> --- On Tue, 7/29/08, "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> hold on .. on the NEWS page I see ... okay .. how very user friendly.
>> Sort of the thing one would put
rithm, so it is certainly worth the extra complexity.
You forgot to look at PowerPC :
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/ppc-dev/ppc-dev/usr/src/lib/libc/ppc/gen/memcpy.s
is that nice and small ?
Dennis Clarke
encourage people who redistribute free software to charge
as much as they wish or can.
Dennis Clarke
rke csw 5372 Aug 30 16:57 hello
-rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 180 Aug 30 16:53 hello.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 1764 Aug 30 16:56 hello.s
-rwxr-xr-x 1 dclarke csw 6424 Aug 30 17:12 hello_gnu
-rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 465 Aug 30 17:08 hello_gnu.s
-rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 465 Aug 30 17:17 hello_gnu_take2.s
Same as before ?
$ diff hello_gnu.s hello_gnu_take2.s
Identical. :-)
So you have to admire the fact that the use of binutils in the path really
makes no difference at all. In fact .. not even involved in the process it
seems.
$ as -o hello_gnu_take2.o -V -Qy -s -xarch=v7 hello_gnu_take2.s
GNU assembler version 2.18 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) using BFD version (GNU
Binutils) 2.18
$ file hello_gnu_take2.o
hello_gnu_take2.o: ELF 32-bit MSB relocatable SPARC Version 1
So I think we have a problem with stdio.h *after* mkheaders and
fixincludes gets to it. Not sure what the fix is other than .. don't run
mkheaders? Have I screwed up something in the compiler specs ?
Any thoughts ?
Dennis Clarke
available.
Sorry for being a nag.
--
Dennis Clarke
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:04:05PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> I really do value the build status reports submitted by
>> others and I go searching for a few results in particular.
>> People like Joe Buck can be relied upon to post good looking
>> results for So
no longer test those systems.
I still have Alpha around .. not sure if this is the sort of thing you
want access to for testing. Last time I checked it was a dual proc 4000
series machine with Windows NT on it. Yes .. really. :-P
--
Dennis Clarke
ity
>> to someone else willing to do it.
I would be okay with looking at the task .. if I could employ some
slightly more modern techniques. I could even host the page with a list of
OS platforms and have the thing sorted ( or sortable ) by arch etc.
Just me thinking out loud.
Dennis Clarke
http://wiki.blastwave.org
> Hi.
>
> My last successful build was from yesterday morning. After the large
> libstdc++ patch by Chris Fairles landed the builds have failed with the
> following error:
>
> In file included from
> /export/home/arth/gnu/gcc.git/libstdc++-v3/src/mutex.cc:30:
> /export/home/arth/gnu/gcc-0904/i386-
>
> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 13:44, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> > Hi.
>> >
>> > My last successful build was from yesterday morning. After the large
>> > libstdc++ patch by Chris Fairles landed the builds have failed with
>> the
>> > following
System is Solaris 8 Sparc. Totally up to date. Vendor provided compiler is
Sun ONE Studio 8 also patched up to date.
My boot strap of GCC 4.2.1 fails at stage 2. Here is what I know.
My approach with GCC has always been to bootstrap at least twice and then
run the testsuites to verify that wh
> On 26 July 2007 03:09, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> The configure line for GCC 4.2.1 looks like so :
>>
>> bash-3.2$ /export/home/dclarke/build/gcc-4.2.1/configure
>> --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
>> --enable-threads=posix
SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this machine
I did further digging and built my own libiconv and installed that into my
own isolated "local" directory at $HOME/local
then I destroyed my previous stage 1 work and started over again thus :
bash-3.2$ date
Thu Jul
> "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this
>> machine
>
> This question is appropriate for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> rather than the gcc@gcc.gnu.org list. Pleas
>> what options do I need to set on the configure line in order for this to
>> work?
>
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html , SPARC section.
You Sir are magnificent and wonderful !
Thank you so very much.
Dennis
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> At the moment GCC 4.2.1 seems to be tied to the UltraSparc processor and
>> thus the older sun4m and 32-bit Sparc machines are being ignored.
>
> The default cpu is v8plus. You can change that by using the configure
> option --with-cpu=v8 or --
>> The default cpu is v8plus.
>
> v9 actually, which automatically enables the V8+ stuff in 32-bit mode.
That isn't what I see here. The output binary was definately for a v8plus
processor. That would be a UltraSparc 1 at the least.
ELF Header
ei_magic: { 0x7f, E, L, F }
ei_class: ELFCL
out.
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c -O3 -g (test for excess errors)
WARNING: program timed out.
-
Dennis Clarke
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of howlong it
>> takes?
>>
>> I am getting "program timed out" warnings for multiple tests :
>>
>> Running
>> /export/home/dclarke/build/gc
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of
>>how long it takes?
>
> I think you need to pass "set timeout -1" into dejagnu. I'd suggest a larger
> positive timeout instead.
>
> I forget the c
imal approach is * *
required in mpfr_sin but that is another topic. Here we use* * the
high resolution timers in Solaris to get more fine grained * *
measurements. Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]*
**/
#include
#
imal approach is * * required in mpfr_sin
but that is another topic. Here we use* * the high resolution timers in
Solaris to get more fine grained * * measurements. Dennis Clarke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]*
**/
#include
#
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/buildstat.html
It seems stuck at 4.2.0 only.
If I search around I cna find reports from Joe Buck that seem to help my
work but there is nothing linked on the build status page.
Dennis Clarke
> On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 17:55 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/buildstat.html
>>
>> It seems stuck at 4.2.0 only.
>>
>> If I search around I cna find reports from Joe Buck that seem to help my
>> work but there is nothing linked on t
in beer) compiler
>> other than gcc, this is harder to test today. Still, not too hard:
>> you would just start with some other free compiler.
>
I generally bootstrap with a Sun Studio compiler on Solaris and then
bootstrap again with whatever *that* resulted in.
-
Dennis Clarke
> How do I go about downloading GCC. Which files do I need to download and
> how
> can I run a .tar file. Thanks for the help.
I'll try to help you here.
One of the big problems with the open source world is that it can be tough
to get started when you don't know .. much of anything about it.
platform. Am I reading
this correctly ? If not .. then please educate me if you can. I would like
to at least see GCC 4.2.2 bootstrap out of the box before flailing forwards
to GCC 4.3.x.
-
Dennis Clarke
gets
thought of. Why would one simply branch towards the next release when
the previous one still needs some work? To appease sales people and
developers making noises for features?
> I don't want to start a flame-fest, but perhaps we could reconsider the
> release-branching criteria.
I will read intently.
Dennis Clarke
> On 10/26/07, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >> > On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>&
>> When I look at the Build status page I see no one has posted a result
>> there for GCC 4.2.2 :
>>
>> Please see : http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/buildstat.html
>
> Here are a couple of posts by Kaveh:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-10/msg00388.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-te
>> Why isn't the main page for build reports updated ?
>
> Will do.
>
>> It *looks* like no one ( me too ) is getting clean builds.
>
> The GCC 4.2.x compiler is in pretty good shape on SPARC/Solaris, modulo the
> libgomp problems on Solaris 10 with the Sun tools. You need to use the GNU
> tools
e battary of tests that can be thrown at the
code to determine correct responses to various calculations, error
conditions, underflows and rounding errors etc etc ?
Dennis Clarke
> On 29 December 2007 20:07, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you have a testsuite ? Some battary of tests that can be thrown at the
>> code to determine correct responses to various calculations, error
>> conditions, underflows and rounding errors etc etc ?
>
&
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
