Created https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9656 and tried replacing "i"(start_task) with ""(&start_task).
Samuel On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jameson Nash <[email protected]> wrote: > it's failing on task.c::357 (on the current master). can you see if it > compiles replacing "i"(start_task) with ""(&start_task) > > > On Tue Jan 06 2015 at 6:33:37 PM Tony Kelman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not a noob question at all. The Intel compiler build support isn't >> regularly tested like GCC/Clang, and it's susceptible to occasional >> breakage on master. Hopefully not on release-0.3, but please let us know if >> that happens too. It would be great if we could somehow get CI running with >> Intel compilers, or maybe one or two nightly buildbots using them? >> >> Some inline assembly was added in PR #9266, which also broke the >> (barely-supported) build with MSVC. Intel should at least allow 64 bit >> inline assembly, I would think? Jameson Nash has a suggested workaround >> involving longjmp for the MSVC case, but I'm not sure whether it applies to >> you - are you trying this on OSX or Linux? >> >> This is a legitimate build problem, please open an issue (e.g. "Build >> broken with Intel compilers") and cross-reference this thread. Include as >> much info about your system and compiler versions as you can. >> >> -Tony >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 1:37:17 PM UTC-8, [email protected] >> wrote: >>> >>> Forgive me if this is a noob question but I'm having some trouble >>> building Julia. I'm on commit a318578. Running `make' gives me: >>> >>> "$ make >>> CC src/task.o >>> task.c(352): catastrophic error: Cannot match asm operand constraint >>> compilation aborted for task.c (code 1) >>> make[2]: *** [task.o] Error 1 >>> make[1]: *** [julia-release] Error 2 >>> make: *** [release] Error 2" >>> >>> Make.user: >>> "USEICC = 1 >>> USEIFC = 1 >>> USE_INTEL_MKL = 1 >>> USE_INTEL_MKL_FFT = 1 >>> USE_INTEL_LIBM = 1 >>> >>> JULIA_CPU_TARGET = core2" >>> >>> Weirdly, the exact same setup works fine compiling v0.3. Does anyone >>> have any ideas? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Samuel >>> >>
