On 10/11/2016 12:14 AM, Satish Balay wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> On 10/10/2016 07:28 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> New builds:
>> 32bit:
>> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/petsc/fedora-24-i386/00463215-petsc/build.log.gz
>> Section with errors: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/448011/
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/petsc/fedora-rawhide-i386/00463045-petsc/build.log.gz
> Previosly you sent the above - and that was fine. Whats the difference 
> between the above 2 builds?

petsc is built for debugging (note compiler flags are '-O0 -g')

petsc is built with default compiler flags for Fedora (note the flags
'-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O3')

I know that sometimes optimization level can influence functionality
(could it be a cause in this case?).

Are executable files for testing (ex5f, ex19, ...) compiled with same
compiler flags used for 'libpetsc'?

> you can replace the previous progname.patch with the following two.. [these 
> should be in the next patch update]
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/1a5f81e5a142bc6fde36c3a51c072ace33ca0cf8
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/9350f85d4de3048e6e39df431416aa18087af8b6

Okay; i wait to know what you think about compiler flags, then i will
rebuild petsc with these new patches.

Thank you.

Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to