Hi,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 01:34:28PM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 01:20 PM, Alex McMurchy wrote:
> >I've now amended solenv/gbuild/platform/unxgcc.mk in my tree to include
> >the flags -mfpmath and -msse2. Not sure whether this was the most
> >appropriate place for the flags.
>
On 09/23/2016 02:42 PM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Should we want to force those flags for 32-bit x68 Linux (and thus
drop support for x86 processors not supporting SSE2), my proposed
patch would be:
That chops off support for quite a chunk of older hardware, IIRC AMD
only
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> Should we want to force those flags for 32-bit x68 Linux (and thus
> drop support for x86 processors not supporting SSE2), my proposed
> patch would be:
>
That chops off support for quite a chunk of older hardware, IIRC AMD
only added support for that starting middle of l
On 09/23/2016 01:51 PM, Alex Kempshall wrote:
On 23/09/16 12:34, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Should we want to force those flags for 32-bit x68 Linux (and thus
drop support for x86 processors not supporting SSE2), my proposed
patch would be:
Stephan
Do you want me to test this patch before moving
On 23/09/16 12:34, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Should we want to force those flags for 32-bit x68 Linux (and thus
drop support for x86 processors not supporting SSE2), my proposed
patch would be:
Stephan
Do you want me to test this patch before moving on?
Alex
__
On 22/09/16 21:52, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Can you try whether this also works if you checkout current master and
just change the line
ifneq ($(PLATFORMID),linux_x86)
to
ifneq ($(PLATFORMID),linux_x86foobar)
in sc/Module_sc.mk to enable the test (disable skipping of the tests)?
Hi Christi
On 09/23/2016 01:20 PM, Alex McMurchy wrote:
I've now amended solenv/gbuild/platform/unxgcc.mk in my tree to include
the flags -mfpmath and -msse2. Not sure whether this was the most
appropriate place for the flags.
Should we want to force those flags for 32-bit x68 Linux (and thus drop
suppor
On 22/09/16 21:52, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
But if Alex' tree really is from September 1st, then it doesn't have
the test files - you did revert the removal of the testfiles on Sept
16, but removed them already mid August...
So unfortunately Alex' result are non-telling, as the problematic tes
On 09/22/2016 10:52 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
Good news and thank you! Interestingly you also didn't encounter
a failure with sc/qa/unit/data/functions/fods/mod.fods which one of our
tinderbox builds had a problem with.
yeah, however now
Hi Alex, Eike, *,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
> On Thursday, 2016-09-22 13:33:42 +0100, Alex Kempshall wrote:
>> On 16/09/16 11:05, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> > Turns out, the relevant GCC switches are
>> >
>> > -mfpmath=sse -msse2
>>
>> On this basis I ran
>>
>>make
Hi,
On Thursday, 2016-09-22 13:33:42 +0100, Alex Kempshall wrote:
> On 16/09/16 11:05, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > Turns out, the relevant GCC switches are
> >
> > -mfpmath=sse -msse2
>
> On this basis I ran
>
>make clean && make ENVCFLAGS="-mfpmath=sse -msse2"
>ENVCFLAGSCXX="-mfpmat
On 16/09/16 11:05, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Turns out, the relevant GCC switches are
-mfpmath=sse -msse2
On this basis I ran
make clean && make ENVCFLAGS="-mfpmath=sse -msse2"
ENVCFLAGSCXX="-mfpmath=sse -msse2" && make sc.check
The compile and tests all completed successfully on an
I shall give this a whirl.
Stephan Bergmann wrote
Turns out, the relevant GCC switches are
-mfpmath=sse -msse2
Alex
On 16/09/16 11:05, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 09/07/2016 10:37 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
You could do us a favour, are you willing to invest some machine time
and try if pass
On 09/07/2016 10:37 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
You could do us a favour, are you willing to invest some machine time
and try if passing either -msse or -msse2 as compiler flags would solve
the failing function tests problem? For this you'd need to do
make clean
make ENVCFLAGS=-msse ENVCFLAGSCXX=-mss
slaka wrote
We are only failing 3 individual tests. And we fail the same tests Excel
fails. Instead of disabling all test for x86 Linux , why not disable or
change the rounding accuracy of the individual tests?
LO only seems to have problems only with numbers very close to
approaching 1 i.e.
Eike Rathke-2 wrote
> If you want to get a working build without disabling all checks then you
> can use
> https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/gitweb?p=core.git;a=commitdiff;h=b9a27d5856f60688456762bfcc29c38670009254
>
> that disables the function tests for linux_x86 builds.
>
> However, if you'd find
Hi Erike
Every so often I compile and test LibreOffice to ensure that no
regressions have occurred. I've encountered a few over the years that
have even got into the Still version of LibreOffice.
As to whatever CHIINV and MINVERSE does doesn't bother me I don't use
them at all. So, I just de
Hi Alex,
On Wednesday, 2016-09-14 08:56:21 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > 1. either stepping through the code
>
> Well, you can try, but it's a more general problem not restricted to
> just one or two functions. Entry point for the CHIINV function would be
> in sc/source/core/tool/interpr3.cxx Sc
Hi slacka,
On Sunday, 2016-09-11 01:09:30 -0700, slacka wrote:
> This may be a regression, but I'm not seeing it with the 32-bit 5.1.4.2
> official LibreOffice for Ubuntu 16.04. With minverse.fods, C10 changes to
> FALSE after pressing Shift+Ctrl+F9. With vdb.fods, C11 changes to FALSE
> after a
Hi Alex,
On Monday, 2016-09-12 20:09:27 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
> Is there anything else I can usefully do? Like
>
> 1. either stepping through the code
Well, you can try, but it's a more general problem not restricted to
just one or two functions. Entry point for the CHIINV function would
Hi Eike
Is there anything else I can usefully do? Like
1. either stepping through the code
2. or bisecting the code
If stepping through where would be a good place to put the first breakpoint.
I beginning to wonder whether the problem is environmental and outside
of LibreOffice.
Alex
O
This may be a regression, but I'm not seeing it with the 32-bit 5.1.4.2
official LibreOffice for Ubuntu 16.04. With minverse.fods, C10 changes to
FALSE after pressing Shift+Ctrl+F9. With vdb.fods, C11 changes to FALSE
after a force recalculate.
Interestingly the minverse.fods test also fails with
Hi Alex,
On Friday, 2016-09-09 08:46:20 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
> Will it helpful if I installed Lubuntu 14.04 64bit and see if I get the same
> problem?
Unlikely. The problem so far only showed up in 32-bit builds.
But thanks for offering.
Eike
--
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number for
Hi Eike
Will it helpful if I installed Lubuntu 14.04 64bit and see if I get the
same problem?
Alex
On 08/09/16 16:01, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Thursday, 2016-09-08 13:28:46 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
[... -msse ...]
Both failed for the same reason.
Pity.. ok, thanks for trying,
Hi Alex,
On Thursday, 2016-09-08 13:28:46 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
> > [... -msse ...]
>
> Both failed for the same reason.
Pity.. ok, thanks for trying, we'll have to further investigate.
> Is the problem just a 32bit issue?
Yes. Only two tinderbox 32-bit builds (and your's) have the prob
Hi Eike
This is what I ran.
cd master
make clean
make ENVCFLAGS=-msse ENVCFLAGSCXX=-msse && make sc.check
make clean
make ENVCFLAGS=-msse2 ENVCFLAGSCXX=-msse2 && make sc.check
Both failed for the same reason.
btw. I ran the above tests on a 32bit Lubuntu 14.04 within VirtualBox.
The flags f
Hi Eike
No problem. Just started the compile.
Alex
On 07/09/16 21:37, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Wednesday, 2016-08-31 19:30:35 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
When compiling LibreOffice I get a failed Unit test. The problem occurs in
sc/qa/unit/functions_test.cxx with
You could do us a f
Hi Alex,
On Wednesday, 2016-08-31 19:30:35 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
> When compiling LibreOffice I get a failed Unit test. The problem occurs in
> sc/qa/unit/functions_test.cxx with
You could do us a favour, are you willing to invest some machine time
and try if passing either -msse or -msse2
Hi Alex,
On Friday, 2016-09-02 09:03:29 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
> I've replicated the problem on -
>
> Lubuntu 1404LTS (up to date as off a few days ago) - gcc (Ubuntu
> 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.3) 4.8.4
>
> Slackware-Current (1402) hasn't been updated for a few months - gcc (GCC)
> 4.9.3
Good
Hi Eike
I've replicated the problem on -
Lubuntu 1404LTS (up to date as off a few days ago) - gcc (Ubuntu
4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.3) 4.8.4
Slackware-Current (1402) hasn't been updated for a few months - gcc
(GCC) 4.9.3
Yesterday once I understood what the actual problem was I raised two bug
Hi Alex,
On Wednesday, 2016-08-31 19:30:35 +0100, Alex McMurchy wrote:
> When compiling LibreOffice I get a failed Unit test. The problem occurs in
> sc/qa/unit/functions_test.cxx with
>
> > CPPUNIT_ASSERT_DOUBLES_EQUAL(1.0, rDoc.GetValue(1, 2, 0), 1e-14);
>
> whilst testing sc/qa/unit/data/fun
Hi All
I've pulled from git and git branch says I'm on
* master
first line of AutoGen is
Running ./configure with '--disable-ccache --disable-gtk3
--with-parallelism=3 --without-junit --without-gssapi --without-krb5
--srcdir=/home/master/master --enable-option-checking=fatal'
When compiling
32 matches
Mail list logo