Steven,
On many/most cfarm machines there will be a stable build of gmp and
required other libs under /opt/cfarm
It appears that gcc13 is no exception.
I suspect, but have not verified, that adding the three directories
/opt/cfarm/{gmp,mpc,mpfr}-latest/lib to your LD_LIBRARY_PATH may resolve
your
Unless I am mistaken, the mips64el hosts are gcc23 and gcc24.fsffrance.org
It looks like gcc23 is up, but gcc24 has lost its NFS mount of /home (which
prevents logins via ssh keys).
-Paul
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm trying to perform some testing
,
BuildID[sha1]=0xcc3e4759e903d238cc9afe4ea5e9c5ebe6ab1b77, not stripped
So, I am not surprised at all that the same is true for Debian on MIPS64.
Same on Solaris for x86-64, FWIW.
-Paul
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Paul Hargr
Rich,
The *default* ABI is "32", but (at least) "-mabi=64" and "-mabi=m32" are
available (have not tried "-mabi=o64").
-Paul
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:03:04PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We're pleased to announce that thre
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Thanks to Imagination Technologies Limited for providing
> the machines and technical support,
>
And many thanks to Laurent, Petar and the other beta testers.
As small/slow as these machine might be relative to other CFarm systems,
they ar
Laurent,
I was wondering if you have any estimate when the MIPS64 machines you
mentioned will become available.
We all appreciate very much what you do for our community.
So, this is NOT intended to pressure you in any way.
-Paul
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Fri,
Jeff,
There actually two things you need to know about.
1. Some machines are only accessible via ports on other machines.
This is described at
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#Machine_Detailed_List in a paragraph
which begins "Machines without public IP...".
In fact, gcc60 is used as the exa
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 06:03 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> > I am not sure a full-blown chroot is necessary, especially in light of
> the limited disk space on these systems.
> > There is already a support request for the installat
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> > To be clear, personally I have access to a different aarch64
> > machine with a chroot setup, so I don't need this particular
> > part of the compile farm.
>
> Likewise.
While I have no aarch64 h/w, I do have armhf h/w.
So, the d
I am not sure a full-blown chroot is necessary, especially in light of the
limited disk space on these systems.
There is already a support request for the installation of the
armhf/multilib compiler packages.
Those bring in the necessary basic libs (libc, libstdc++, etc) as package
dependencies.
Th
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 23:31, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> > 3) Is there any desire from the users to see newer {Free,Net,Open}BSD
> than
> > presently in gcc76's set of VMs?
>
> I've found the BSDs are easy to ru
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
[...snip...]
> FWIW: There is a "neat trick" one can use involving distcc.
>
[...snip...]
> While I've not tried building gcc this way (but might try now with
> --disable-bootstrap) I've found this far
My message below was intended for the entire list, not just for Matthew.
-Paul
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul Hargrove
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Gcc-cfarm-users] Future of non-x86/Linux platforms?
To: Matthew Fortune
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:47 PM
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Fotis Georgatos wrote
(in part):
> For the record, both hardware and virtual/simulated resources are useful,
> for different purposes each.
I agree entirely and that is exactly the spirit in which I was operating
when introduced the question.
I never intended to
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-04-28 15:31:50 -0700, Paul Hargrove wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> > 1) Is there any effort (current or planned for the near-future) to revive
> > any of the IA64, ARM, MIPS or SPARC systems?
> >
> > 2)
I've seen this topic addressed in the archives, and don't want to restart
any of the arguments about how useful/relevant CFarm has become.
>From my point of view "beggars can't be choosers" and so this email is just
my observations and a few questions and NOT any sort of complaint.
As others have
16 matches
Mail list logo
