This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Regenerate x86 and x86_64 ulps
- From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, Jeroen <_jeroen_ at yahoo dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:47:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: Regenerate x86 and x86_64 ulps
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307022001020 dot 28677 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <1372836611 dot 94370 dot YahooMailNeo at web124504 dot mail dot ne1 dot yahoo dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307031352210 dot 18167 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130703143742 dot GL6123 at two dot firstfloor dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307031441310 dot 18167 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
> If you don't now have any useful ulps regeneration to do with 4.5 or 4.6
> then please close bug 15487 (possibly documenting the problems with 4.5 on
> the wiki page for 2.18). The failures you attached to that bug are just
> small ulps differences for which "make regen-ulps" and checking in the
> regeneration would be appropriate - are you saying you now get much more
> major issues when building with those compilers?
Yes some tests segfault (only on 32bit). It all works on FC16 or on
64bit.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.