Hmm, I was certain I knew what was wrong, but the tests still fail.
Nobody should hold their breath waiting for my patches, but I am still
*IF* I can determine that I am right about the asm allowing gcc to
generate bad code then I think this is important for 1.5.5.
Otherwise, I think this is a 1.6 issue.
On 2/24/2012 5:19 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> I see now why I get "check" failures from the opal atomics w/ XLC-9.0.
> The inline asm is mildly incorrect and I am actually surprised gcc
> didn't produce bad code.
> Patch(es) will be sent ASAP as I think this should be fixed for 1.5.5.
> On 2/23/2012 8:24 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>> This is consistent with my findings w/ XLC (mostly on BG/L and BG/P
>> front end nodes).
>> None of the 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 or 11.1 versions of XLC I tested could
>> generate correct atomics.
>> They either failed at build time, or failed the tests in test/asm/.
>> On 2/23/2012 8:17 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> On 24/02/12 15:12, Christopher Samuel wrote:
>>>> I suspect this is irrelevant, but I got a build failure trying to
>>>> compile it on our BG/P front end node (login node) with the IBM XL
>>> Oops, forgot how I built it..
>>> CC=xlc CXX=xlC F77=xlf ./configure&& make
>>> - -- Christopher Samuel - Senior Systems Administrator
>>> VLSCI - Victorian Life Sciences Computation Initiative
>>> Email: samuel_at_[hidden] Phone: +61 (0)3 903 55545
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> devel mailing list
Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove_at_[hidden]
Future Technologies Group
HPC Research Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900