I have versions 8.1.032, 9.0.024 and 9.1.042 of the Intel compilers on a
Linux/x86 (32-bit) host.
All three can configure and build hwloc-1.3.2rc1, but all are failing
"make check" in the same way.
What I see is ton(ne)s of linker messages and every executable SEGVs.
The linker messages look
On Feb 9, 2012, at 5:38 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>> We then test if *either* set the variable.
>> Sort of a double-negative.
>
> One of De Morgan's Laws:
>NOT (A AND B) = (NOT A) OR (NOT B)
>
> Applied to give:
>NOT (TEST1_FAIL AND TEST2_FAIL)
> = (NOT TEST1_FAIL) OR (NOT TEST2
What does nm say about libhwloc.so? Are those symbols public or private? Was
everything properly built as 32 bit?
It's kinda weird that icc supported the visibility stuff but gcc did not...
On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>
> I have versions 8.1.032, 9.0.024 and 9.1.04
On 2/10/2012 9:27 AM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
I have versions 8.1.032, 9.0.024 and 9.1.042 of the Intel compilers on
a Linux/x86 (32-bit) host.
All three can configure and build hwloc-1.3.2rc1, but all are failing
"make check" in the same way.
What I see is ton(ne)s of linker messages and e
On 2/10/2012 11:04 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
It's kinda weird that icc supported the visibility stuff but gcc did not...
See my post that crossed yours in flight.
The configure logic in ompi thinks icc does NOT support visibility on
this platform.
I think ompi is a touch smarter than hwloc in
On 2/10/2012 11:00 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Here's the final logic -- is it what you intended?
Yes, that works for me.
I pasted you version into config/hwloc.m4 on 1.3.2rc1 and faked the
$hwloc_c_vendor setting.
The results were the same as with my version.
(Yes, I did autoreconf to make sur
On Feb 10, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>> It's kinda weird that icc supported the visibility stuff but gcc did not...
>
> See my post that crossed yours in flight.
> The configure logic in ompi thinks icc does NOT support visibility on this
> platform.
> I think ompi is a touch sma
Coolio. Thanks.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>
>
> On 2/10/2012 11:00 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> Here's the final logic -- is it what you intended?
>
> Yes, that works for me.
> I pasted you version into config/hwloc.m4 on 1.3.2rc1 and faked the
> $hwloc_c_vendor sett
On 2/10/2012 11:19 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I'll go compare.
I already did...
HWLOC (1.3.2rc1) tries:
AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[
__attribute__((visibility("default"))) int foo;
]],[[int i;]])],
[],
[hwloc_add
Committed to v1.3.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>
>
> On 2/10/2012 11:19 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> I'll go compare.
>
> I already did...
>
>
> HWLOC (1.3.2rc1) tries:
>AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[
>__attribute__((visibility("default
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.5a1r4297
Start time: Fri Feb 10 21:01:01 EST 2012
End time: Fri Feb 10 21:04:18 EST 2012
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.4.1a1r4298
Start time: Fri Feb 10 21:04:18 EST 2012
End time: Fri Feb 10 21:07:18 EST 2012
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.3.2rc2r4296
Start time: Fri Feb 10 21:07:18 EST 2012
End time: Fri Feb 10 21:10:39 EST 2012
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
13 matches
Mail list logo
