similar to: Clang 3.8 and gcc 5.2 has difference in symbol names

Hao Yu Commercial Scale Out IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 1101 Kitchawan Rd/Route 134, Rm 36-019 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598-0218 914-945-1854, Email: yuh@us.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by Hao Yu/Watson/IBM on 10/31/2006 09:52 AM ----- Jimi

Hao Yu Commercial Scale Out IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 1101 Kitchawan Rd/Route 134, Rm 36-019 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598-0218 914-945-1854, Email: yuh@us.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by Hao Yu/Watson/IBM on 10/31/2006 09:52 AM ----- Jimi

Hi Tim, Thanks for the thorough explanation. It makes perfect sense. I was not aware fast-math is supposed to prevent more precision being used than what is in the standard. I came across this issue while looking into the output or different compilers. XL and Microsoft compiler seem to have that turned on by default. But I assume that clang follows what gcc does, and have that turned off.

Still not working with gcc5.2 rc On Thu, Jul 9, 2015, 11:08 William Kennington <william at wkennington.com> wrote: > Trying 5.2-rc now, will report back after the test case is run. > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015, 07:23 Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 06:56 +0000, William Kennington wrote: >> > Does fedora have gcc5

Ok, I'll put a patch together to fix this later today. I'll probably do what Reid was suggesting and use what is already in there for Windows. Thanks, Samuel Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 11/04/2014 12:11:08 PM: > From: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > To: Samuel F Antao/Watson/IBM at IBMUS > Cc: azanella at

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: Just in case it's important, I'm using Arch Linux (and most Linux distros these days) CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS, which are as follows: $ grep FLAGS /etc/makepkg.conf CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" CFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector-strong"

Adding Jiangning Liu to the thread. Jiangning reported a similar issue on the llvm-commits list on Debian aarch64. In general it sounds like std::call_once may not really be bug free. Jiangning, can you please provide your gcc/libstdc++ version? Thanks, -Chris > On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 12:17

Hi Bill, You can find the same issue in the buildbot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/builds/16444/steps/compile.llvm.stage2/logs/stdio It is failing for me both in BE (gcc 4.8.2) and LE(4.9.1). I am compiling with clang 3.5, but those are the gcc toolchains I am using. What do you think is the best way to fix this? Thanks! Samuel Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at

It seems the crash of llvm/clang build on aarch64 Debian has been fixed by r220941. Thanks, -Jiangning 2014-11-05 8:45 GMT+08:00 Jiangning Liu <liujiangning1 at gmail.com>: > The versions I'm using right now are > > * gcc: (Debian/Linaro 4.9.1-14) 4.9.1 > * libstdc++: libstdc++.so.6.0.20 > > Thanks, > -Jiangning > > 2014-11-05 4:46 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman

So if I first create the value in an entry BB and then build a CopyToReg but then I have to read it in a BB that loops back to itself, with it's own CopyToReg at the end, then I have two CopyToReg nodes for the same value. In this case, I need to create 3 virt regs, 1 for each CopyToReg and a third for the CopyFromReg in the beginning of the loop BB, right? And then I need to build a PHI

Hi Arpith, That is exactly what it is :). My bad, I thought I copied over the libraries to where LIBRARY_PATH pointing but apparently it was copied to a wrong destination. Thanks a lot. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Arpith C Jacob <acjacob at us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Ahmed, > > nvlink is unable to find the GPU OMP runtime library in its path. Does > LIBRARY_PATH point to

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:50 AM, poma via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > - "unsigned char c;" does not solve the problem > > - "c >= 0 && c <= ' '" solves the problem for the current git Could you try the following patch? Feel free to only apply the change to readconfig.c if you want. -- -Gene diff --git

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > I can't reproduce the failure. I am building with a clang built > Release from recent source as my stage-1 bootstrap compiler: > clang version 4.0.0 (trunk 282322) (llvm/trunk 282341) The clang I use was built from the 3.9 release branch: clang version 3.9.1 (branches/release_39

I performed an experiment in which I had dhcpd specify a named file ("foo") instead of one based on a client's MAC address. Lo and behold, the same problem occured. The PXE stack requested and was served the right file, the kernel loaded as did the initrd. But again, the boot sequence stopped at "Ready." Keep in mind that the contents of the file are the same as was in the

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 06:56 +0000, William Kennington wrote: > Does fedora have gcc5 patches? I believe they applied some of the 5.2 > changes. I'm not an expert on the gcc package, but looking at the changelog it appears to be be following the upstream 5.x branch: * Thu Jun 18 2015 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat.com> 5.1.1-4 - update from the 5 branch - fix C++ ICE in

Hi all, The AllowFPOpFusion option passed to a target can currently take 3 different values, Fast, Standard or Strict (TargetOptions.h), being Standard the default. In the DAGCombiner, during the combination of mul and add/subtract into multiply-and-add/subtract, this option is expected to be Fast in order to enable the combine. This means, that by default no multiply-and-add opcodes are going

Hi # lslpp -l perl.rte Fileset Level State Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: /usr/lib/objrepos perl.rte 5.8.0.0 COMMITTED Perl Version 5 Runtime Environment # lppchk -vm3 # perl -V Summary of my perl5 (revision 5.0 version 8 subversion

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016, Stephen Harris wrote: > On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 09:19:43PM -0500, Bruce F Bading wrote: > > One, the Google Authenticator (OTP authentication). > > On its own, this is not 2FA. It's single factor ("something you > have"). > > A combination of Google Authenticator _and_ password is 2FA. This is > easy to do with PAM. Agreed >

On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:00 -0400, Samuel F Antao wrote: > Alexey, Alexander, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I tried removing the flag SA_NODEFER but > it didn't do any good... I have been digging into the problem with the > null_deref test today but I was unable to clearly identify the > problem. I suspect that it was either a bug with the calling > convention/unwinding

Could someone help me understand if what I'm seeing with share access is correct? On my samba domain I have two users (user1 and user2) and one share; the share has attribute "writelist = user1". On a linux machine I: mount the share with "mount -t cifs -o username=user1" successfully open a file in the share for writing with the perl "open" function