On 2/3/2012 10:28 AM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
It occurs to me now that xlc MIGHT have an option to make only the
specific (E) become fatal.
I will look and report back.
Nope.
I could find -qsuppress= to suppress given messages, but no way
to elevate given ones to fatal.
-Paul
--
Paul H.
On 2/3/2012 5:27 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
Is "vendor=ibm" equivalent to "compiler=xlc"?
The current vendor detection code looks for __xlC__ __IBMC__ and
__IBMCPP__ before falling back to __AIX without __GNUC__. Can we pass
-qhalt=e in all these cases? Or should we grep for xlc in the version
out
Le 02/02/2012 11:54, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Paul H. Hargrove, le Thu 02 Feb 2012 01:43:45 +0100, a écrit :
>>
>> On 2/1/2012 4:14 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote:
>>> On 02/02/12 10:38, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>>>
> I am not sure if one should fix this by:
> a) Document the need for CFL
Paul H. Hargrove, le Thu 02 Feb 2012 01:43:45 +0100, a écrit :
>
>
> On 2/1/2012 4:14 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote:
> >On 02/02/12 10:38, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> >
> >>> I am not sure if one should fix this by:
> >>> a) Document the need for CFLAGS=-qhalt=e
> >>> b) Force "-qhalt=e" at confi
Brice Goglin, le Wed 01 Feb 2012 14:20:49 +0100, a écrit :
> "/vlsci/VLSCI/samuel/HWLOC/hwloc-1.3.1/include/hwloc.h", line 1203.28:
> 1506-1385 (W) The attribute "pure" is not a valid type attribute.
> CC traversal.lo
>
> Attribute pure is before the function name, I'll move it after, XLC
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/12 10:38, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> With that out of the way, I am please to say that when configuring
> hwloc-1.3.1 with "CFLAGS=-qhalt=e" the correct variant of
> sched_setaffinity() is detected. This gets rid of the messages
> regarding s
On 2/1/2012 4:14 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote:
On 02/02/12 10:38, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> I am not sure if one should fix this by:
> a) Document the need for CFLAGS=-qhalt=e
> b) Force "-qhalt=e" at configure time when CC=xlc
> c) Find some other way to fix the configure probe
>
> My
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/12 10:38, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> I am not sure if one should fix this by:
> a) Document the need for CFLAGS=-qhalt=e
> b) Force "-qhalt=e" at configure time when CC=xlc
> c) Find some other way to fix the configure probe
>
> My vote is fo
On 2/1/2012 3:12 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
[...]
This is WRONG.
The compiler has reported an error: "(E) Missing argument(s)" and yet
exited with $? = 0
I am looking at xlc docs to see if there is some compiler flag to be set.
From "man xlc":
-qhalt=
Stops the com
We crossed in the ether about 1 minute apart :-)
On 2/1/2012 3:15 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
Thanks for the debugging, this makes my last mail to Christopher useless
then:)
Brice
--
Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov
Future Technologies Group
HPC Research Department
Le 02/02/2012 00:12, Paul H. Hargrove a écrit :
>
>
> On 2/1/2012 5:20 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> Le 01/02/2012 03:49, Christopher Samuel a écrit :
>>> With XLC and 1.3.1 and 1.4 I get plenty of warnings (compile logs for
>>> both attached) whilst compiling and then 4 failures in make check
>>> (ac
Le 01/02/2012 23:59, Christopher Samuel a écrit :
> On 02/02/12 00:20, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
> > This looks very bad. It means something screwed the already very complex
> > sched_setaffinity detection code.
> > Does XLC redefine its own sched_setaffinity functions? Can you find the
> > relevant he
On 2/1/2012 5:20 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
Le 01/02/2012 03:49, Christopher Samuel a écrit :
With XLC and 1.3.1 and 1.4 I get plenty of warnings (compile logs for
both attached) whilst compiling and then 4 failures in make check
(accompanied with segmentation faults):
samuel@tambo:~/HWLOC/hwloc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/12 00:20, Brice Goglin wrote:
> This looks very bad. It means something screwed the already very complex
> sched_setaffinity detection code.
> Does XLC redefine its own sched_setaffinity functions? Can you find the
> relevant header file and
Le 01/02/2012 03:49, Christopher Samuel a écrit :
> With XLC and 1.3.1 and 1.4 I get plenty of warnings (compile logs for
> both attached) whilst compiling and then 4 failures in make check
> (accompanied with segmentation faults):
>
> samuel@tambo:~/HWLOC/hwloc-1.3.1> grep -B1 FAIL: log
> /bin/sh:
I accidentally under-reported the failures I saw w/ xlc.
In addition to the 2 assertion failures, I had the following SEGV's from
1.3.1:
/bin/sh: line 5: 6644 Segmentation fault ${dir}$tst
FAIL: hwloc_bind
/bin/sh: line 5: 6676 Segmentation fault ${dir}$tst
FAIL: hwloc_get_last_cpu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/02/12 12:56, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> When running "make check" in hwloc-1.3.1 on a Linux/POWER7 system I see:
Doesn't seem to happen on Power6 (SLES10SP4) with GCC for hwloc 1.3.1 or
1.4.
With XLC and 1.3.1 and 1.4 I get plenty of warnings (
When running "make check" in hwloc-1.3.1 on a Linux/POWER7 system I see:
lt-linux-libnuma:
/users/phh1/OMPI/hwloc-1.3.1-linux-ppc64-gcc//hwloc-1.3.1/tests/linux-libnuma.c:53:
main: Assertion `hwloc_bitmap_isequal(set, set2)' failed.
/bin/sh: line 5: 21415 Aborted ${dir}$tst
FAIL
18 matches
Mail list logo
