similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-gfortran test results

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 **, +

Building llvm 2.3 and llvm-gcc4.2-2.3 on Mac OS X 10.5, I am seeing the following failures remaining in the gcc 4.2.1 gfortran testsuite... LAST_UPDATED: Native configuration is i686-apple-darwin9 === gfortran tests === Running target unix FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O1 execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O2 execution test FAIL:

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,