ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-arch is a bit empty. i
guess things are moving around. any idea where i can get the latest
tag=.
randy
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
Randy Bush wrote:
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-arch is a bit empty. i
guess things are moving around. any idea where i can get the latest
tag=.
cut and paste error
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots
___
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-arch is a bit empty. i
guess things are moving around. any idea where i can get the latest
tag=.
Latest tag is 9.1-RC1:
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-arch is a bit empty. i
guess things are moving around. any idea where i can get the latest
tag=.
Latest tag is 9.1-RC1:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/9.1-RC1/ , etc.
this is for an i386 running 10-current
randy
On 15-09-2012 15:43, Randy Bush wrote:
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-arch is a bit empty. i
guess things are moving around. any idea where i can get the latest
tag=.
https://pub.allbsd.org/FreeBSD-snapshots/
--
Joel
___
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-arch is a bit empty. i
guess things are moving around. any idea where i can get the latest
tag=.
Latest tag is 9.1-RC1:
As I said, this is the latest snapshot. Long story short is that the
old process was changed before 9.0 and releng hasn't caught up with
the new process yet in a sustainable manner (at least, not executing
it on a regular basis). If you have interest in making sure regular
(monthly) releases
[-- Attachment #1 --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: base64, Size: 49K --]
Help
- Reply message -
From: freebsd-current-requ...@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: freebsd-current Digest, Vol 465, Issue 5
Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 8:00 am
(and much more)
This
LLVM by default turns these:
case LibFunc::copysign: case LibFunc::copysignf: case LibFunc::copysignl:
case LibFunc::fabs: case LibFunc::fabsf: case LibFunc::fabsl:
case LibFunc::sin: case LibFunc::sinf: case LibFunc::sinl:
case LibFunc::cos: case
On 15-09-2012 03:06, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 05:18:08PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
A third class of failure appears to be that clang emits
i387 fpu instructions for at least sinf and cosf instead
of calls to the library routines. AFAIK, the library
routines are faster and
Fwiw, this seems to have been fixed as of a few minutes ago.
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120910/150720.html
Steve, can you please test llvm/clang from (their) svn and report
back? We can import a newer snapshot if all is ok.
Thank you.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at
On 15-09-2012 14:48, Roman Divacky wrote:
Fwiw, this seems to have been fixed as of a few minutes ago.
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120910/150720.html
Steve, can you please test llvm/clang from (their) svn and report
back? We can import a newer snapshot if
Is this correct?
lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20
6.031937e-01
-9.629173e-02
2.814722e-01
If so I believe the issue is fixed.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On 15-09-2012 14:48, Roman Divacky wrote:
Fwiw, this seems to have been fixed as of a few minutes ago.
On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote:
Is this correct?
lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20
6.031937e-01
-9.629173e-02
2.814722e-01
Yes, that's what the libm call returns.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Tijl Coosemans t...@coosemans.org wrote:
On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote:
Is this correct?
lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20
6.031937e-01
-9.629173e-02
2.814722e-01
Yes, that's what the libm call returns.
The following is a result in Fedora 17
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Tijl Coosemans t...@coosemans.org wrote:
On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote:
Is this correct?
lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20
6.031937e-01
-9.629173e-02
2.814722e-01
Yes, that's what the libm call returns.
Linux z 3.5.3-1.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP
On Sep 15, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
LLVM by default turns these:
case LibFunc::copysign: case LibFunc::copysignf: case LibFunc::copysignl:
case LibFunc::fabs: case LibFunc::fabsf: case LibFunc::fabsl:
case LibFunc::sin: case LibFunc::sinf:
On 2012-09-15 16:30, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote:
Is this correct?
lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20
6.031937e-01
-9.629173e-02
2.814722e-01
Yes, that's what the libm call returns.
Fix committed in http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/240531.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 07:18:28PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-09-15 16:30, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On 15-09-2012 16:09, Roman Divacky wrote:
Is this correct?
lev ~$ ./cos 1.23456789e20
6.031937e-01
-9.629173e-02
2.814722e-01
Yes, that's what the libm call returns.
Fix
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1] contains more information about the tests,
some semi-cooked
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
the fact that the
On 2012-09-16 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
the fact that the difference is so small is interesting,
and it might almost suggests that the test is dominated by
other factors than the compiler.
Yes, this result was more or less what I expected: runtime performance
is probably related more to
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1]
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Konstantin Belousov
kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of
24 matches
Mail list logo