Re: ilmbase

I'll prepare a regular source upload with the version bumped to 1.0.1-3 now if that's OK with y'all? Or should it be 1.0.1-2+b1 instead? Please use 1.0.1-2.1, because it's a regular NMU. It'd be nice if you could close #478548 from debian/changelog. Will do. Doesn't look like we did this. An

Re: ilmbase

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:01:47PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > Hi, > >>> I'll prepare a regular source upload with the version bumped to 1.0.1-3 >>> now if that's OK with y'all? Or should it be 1.0.1-2+b1 instead? >> >> Please use 1.0.1-2.1, because it's a regular NMU. It'd be nice if you >> co

Re: ilmbase

Hi, I'll prepare a regular source upload with the version bumped to 1.0.1-3 now if that's OK with y'all? Or should it be 1.0.1-2+b1 instead? Please use 1.0.1-2.1, because it's a regular NMU. It'd be nice if you could close #478548 from debian/changelog. Will do. Shouldn't you guys be asleep

Re: ilmbase

Hi, Dato told me on IRC yesterday that it would be okay for us to do so. Please proceed. Hmm. It was pointed out to me on IRC that you've done a binary-only upload, without the source changes that are needed to build the package. That makes this build non-reproducible, which is a big no-no. C

Re: ilmbase

* Michael Schmitz [Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:55:19 +0200]: > I'll prepare a regular source upload with the version bumped to 1.0.1-3 > now if that's OK with y'all? Or should it be 1.0.1-2+b1 instead? Please use 1.0.1-2.1, because it's a regular NMU. It'd be nice if you could close #478548 from debian

Re: ilmbase

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:15:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:23AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > Hi, > > > >>> Also, is this the only test that's failing? > >> > >> Nope, there was another one later on IIRC. I'll disable the PosQNan2 > >> and NegQNan* checks

Re: ilmbase

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:23AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > Hi, > >>> Also, is this the only test that's failing? >> >> Nope, there was another one later on IIRC. I'll disable the PosQNan2 >> and NegQNan* checks and investigate. > > It so turns out that NaN handling by the testsuite was all

Re: ilmbase

Hi, Also, is this the only test that's failing? Nope, there was another one later on IIRC. I'll disable the PosQNan2 and NegQNan* checks and investigate. It so turns out that NaN handling by the testsuite was all that fails on my machine, due to compiler and binutils assumptions about what

Re: ilmbase

Hi all, sorry for dropping the CC there... Just testBitPatterns.o in the HalfTest build directory would be enough. Using -O0 the test succeeds. Considering NaN handling is correct even though the precise bit patterns are not preserved (by gcc, mind you) I'd say these extra pedantic tests need

Re: ilmbase

No for t2 (aranym), but yes for spice (040). Something I can dump for you? Just testBitPatterns.o in the HalfTest build directory would be enough. With what flags? (color me stupid) No, me stupid, you too smart :-) I failed to parse the 'dump' properly above. Just objdump -d would be fine

Re: ilmbase

Seems we didn't Cc the maintainer on this conversation... On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 05:14:15AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: Want me to try it with the same versions on aranym? >>> >>> That's probably not worth it. Do you stil have the build tree? >> >> No for t2 (aranym), but yes for spice (04

Re: ilmbase

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 05:14:15AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: Want me to try it with the same versions on aranym? >>> >>> That's probably not worth it. Do you stil have the build tree? >> >> No for t2 (aranym), but yes for spice (040). Something I can dump for >> you? > > Just testBitPatter

Re: ilmbase

Want me to try it with the same versions on aranym? That's probably not worth it. Do you stil have the build tree? No for t2 (aranym), but yes for spice (040). Something I can dump for you? Just testBitPatterns.o in the HalfTest build directory would be enough. Using -O0 the test succeeds.

Re: ilmbase

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 06:10:41AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: results at >>> >>> Thanks - that gets a lot farther along. Different gcc and binutils, >>> though. >> >> Want me to try it wit

Re: ilmbase

Hi, On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Michael Schmitz wrote: > objdump on testBitPatterns.o gives: > > > 005c > <_ZN63_GLOBAL__N_.._.._HalfTest_testBitPatterns.cpp__2E91A93413floatPosQNan1Ev>: > 5c: 4e56 linkw %fp,#0 > 60: f23c 4400 7fff fmoves #nan,%fp0 > 66: > 68

Re: ilmbase

results at Thanks - that gets a lot farther along. Different gcc and binutils, though. Want me to try it with the same versions on aranym? That's probably not worth it. Do you stil have the buil

Re: ilmbase

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:22:48AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: Stephen: please give it a go on a 040. I'll run a test on hobbes (t2 being aranym prempts that plan of mine). >> >> results at >>

Re: ilmbase

Stephen: please give it a go on a 040. I'll run a test on hobbes (t2 being aranym prempts that plan of mine). results at Thanks - that gets a lot farther along. Different gcc and binutils, though

Re: ilmbase

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:36AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:42:57AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > Stephen: please give it a go on a 040. I'll run a test on hobbes (t2 > > being aranym prempts that plan of mine). results at

Re: ilmbase

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:42:57AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > Stephen: please give it a go on a 040. I'll run a test on hobbes (t2 > being aranym prempts that plan of mine). Do I need to run the whole build or is there a short test I can try? Thanks for working on this, Stephen -- Steph

Re: ilmbase

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Petr Stehlik wrote: > Finn Thain wrote: > > Maybe the aranym devs would be interested in a little Test Driven > > Development? Nothing major, just enough to get these floating point > > tests to pass. It seems a bit dangerous to disable the testsuite... > > I definitely w

Re: ilmbase

Finn Thain wrote: Maybe the aranym devs would be interested in a little Test Driven Development? Nothing major, just enough to get these floating point tests to pass. It seems a bit dangerous to disable the testsuite... I definitely would be interested. Such test suite could show the current

Re: ilmbase

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Michael Schmitz wrote: > Hi, > > > > ilmbase failed to build properly; the test suite failed. > > > > ilmbase seems to be fairly new, so the question of whether the test suite > > ever worked on m68k is a bit moot. > > > > If I parse the testsuite output right, it tries to

Re: ilmbase

Hi, ilmbase failed to build properly; the test suite failed. ilmbase seems to be fairly new, so the question of whether the test suite ever worked on m68k is a bit moot. If I parse the testsuite output right, it tries to do some rounding tests based on pathological bit patterns for floats?

Re: ilmbase

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:20:44AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > What kind of processor was that build run on? t2 is aranym running 2.6.24. Might want to give it a go on hobbes. I can try it on one of my 68040's if you'd prefer (I only have 4 to choose from now ;). Thanks, Stephen -- Stephe

Re: ilmbase

Hi, ilmbase failed to build properly; the test suite failed. ilmbase seems to be fairly new, so the question of whether the test suite ever worked on m68k is a bit moot. If I parse the testsuite output right, it tries to do some rounding tests based on pathological bit patterns for floats?