similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc4.2-2.3 gfortran failures

The current llvm/llvm-gcc4.2 svn is now fixed with respect to the extra warnings that were being emitted by the gfortran compiler. The gfortran testsuite results under Intel Darwin9 are appended below. Jack Native configuration is i686-apple-darwin9 === gfortran tests === Running target unix/-m32 FAIL: gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90 -O (internal compiler error) FAIL:

Building the prerelease of llvm-gcc 2.4 on Intel darwin9 with the following patch... --- llvm-gcc-4.2-2.3.999-20081024.source/gcc/stub-c.c.org 2008-10-30 18:55:45.000000000 -0400 +++ llvm-gcc-4.2-2.3.999-20081024.source/gcc/stub-c.c 2008-10-30 18:57:29.000000000 -0400 @@ -157,3 +157,27 @@ { gcc_assert(0); } + + +bool cvt_utf8_utf16 (const unsigned char *, size_t, unsigned char **, +

Using the proposed patch for enabling the i386 multilib under the x86_64-apple-darwin build... http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025040.html the following gfortran testsuite results are obtained... Native configuration is x86_64-apple-darwin10 === gfortran tests === Running target unix/-m32 FAIL: gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90 -O (internal compiler error) FAIL:

Anton, With regard to the gfortran test cases which don't fail on x86_64 Linux, these are the exact gfortran.log entries for them under i686 Darwin9... > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_12.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_12.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) Executing on host:

WSDL conversion as proposed in the paypal plugin howto doesn''t work. Any idea what goes wrong? See the output below. rsp@hollerith:~/workspace/pptest/vendor/plugins/paypal$ wsdl2ruby.rb --wsdl http://www.sandbox.paypal.com/wsdl/PayPalSvc.wsdl --type client --force F, [2006-12-04T16:30:43.136405 #11579] FATAL -- app: Detected an exception. Stopping ... undefined method `new'' for

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > > and smp_read_acquire(), > > But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all > the confusion lays. > > smp_mb() is strongly/globally

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 06:02:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release()

Hi Paul, On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > > > and smp_read_acquire(), > > > > But they provide different grades

Hi Paul, On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > > > and smp_read_acquire(), > > > > But they provide different grades

>>>>> <seifried@seifried.org> writes: > I was looking around for a book specifically on Linux security a week or > two ago, and couldn''t find any. I wanted something Linux specific as > opposed to say O''Reilly''s yellow safe book. There are actually Linux-specific details in Practical; I put some of them there. They are not, however,