On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 07:55:30PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>
> > I've been fairly clear: every release says either
> > "It is strongly recommended that normal users do not use this
> > release, and instead use the stable 2.14 ver
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> I've been fairly clear: every release says either
> "It is strongly recommended that normal users do not use this
> release, and instead use the stable 2.14 version."
> or
> "All users are invited to experiment with this version."
>
> Ma
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 09:19:31PM +0200, Frédéric Bron wrote:
> After update, it comes with g++ 4.7.0-5 and lilypon 2.15.39.
> Please find attached the output which looks good to me.
> Any idea why it does not come with a stable release (i.e. 2.14)?
Because the fedora mainter(s) for lilypond thin
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:19:31 +0200
Frédéric Bron wrote:
> I just installed fedora 17 x86_64.
> After update, it comes with g++ 4.7.0-5 and lilypon 2.15.39.
> Please find attached the output which looks good to me.
Yes, it looks good.
> Any idea why it does not come with a stable release (i.e. 2.
>>> I mentioned in passing that Fedora 17 (currently in beta) ships
>>> Lilypond 2.15.29 that reports bogus bar checks.
>>>
>>> It turns out that both the current Lilypond from git and Lilypond
>>> 2.14.2 are miscompiled on the up-to-date Fedora 17 so they exhibit the
>>> same problem.
>>
>> What c
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting David Kastrup :
>
>> We can probably use yes:400600[0-2]) here: 4.6.3 is supposed to contain
>> the fix.
>
> Thank you for opening a separate ticket for it (2514) and reviewing my
> ticket (2513)!
Well, it means that my ticket goes through earlier, you will have to
Quoting David Kastrup :
We can probably use yes:400600[0-2]) here: 4.6.3 is supposed to contain
the fix.
Thank you for opening a separate ticket for it (2514) and reviewing my
ticket (2513)!
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
___
lilypond-devel mailing li
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting David Kastrup :
>
>> Now we just need to figure out which of the gazillion optimization
>> options (listed in the assembly file) from O2 as compared to O1 makes
>> the compilation go bad, and then we can add appropriate compiler
>> options.
>>
>> We had to do this s
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting David Kastrup :
>
>> Pavel Roskin writes:
>>
>>> Quoting David Kastrup :
>>>
That would have been my most likely guess. Probably the "min" function
call.
>>>
>>> You are absolultely right! I was able to work around the gcc bug by
>>> making a separate f
Quoting David Kastrup :
The optimizer does not appear interested in the result of the comparison
when calculating the minimum value! There is no conditional path
entered. That does not make all too much sense.
That's a truly sharp eye!
A diff between the i386 assembly without -fno-tree-vrp
Quoting David Kastrup :
Now we just need to figure out which of the gazillion optimization
options (listed in the assembly file) from O2 as compared to O1 makes
the compilation go bad, and then we can add appropriate compiler
options.
We had to do this sort of $&!# already for gcc 4.6, so our c
Quoting David Kastrup :
Pavel Roskin writes:
Quoting David Kastrup :
That would have been my most likely guess. Probably the "min" function
call.
You are absolultely right! I was able to work around the gcc bug by
making a separate function for Moment comparison and using it instead
of
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting David Kastrup :
>
>> That would have been my most likely guess. Probably the "min" function
>> call.
>
> You are absolultely right! I was able to work around the gcc bug by
> making a separate function for Moment comparison and using it instead
> of min():
>
> Mom
Quoting David Kastrup :
That would have been my most likely guess. Probably the "min" function
call.
You are absolultely right! I was able to work around the gcc bug by
making a separate function for Moment comparison and using it instead
of min():
Moment
min_moment (Moment m1, Moment
David Kastrup writes:
> The optimizer does not appear interested in the result of the
> comparison when calculating the minimum value! There is no
> conditional path entered. That does not make all too much sense.
Since you managed to boil this down to a single function and
compilation, it sho
David Kastrup writes:
> Pavel Roskin writes:
>
>> Quoting David Kastrup :
>>
>>> Pavel Roskin writes:
>>>
Quoting Pavel Roskin :
>>
I'll try to identify the function tomorrow.
>>>
>>> That would be welcome. I looked through the function right now and saw
>>> no obvious problematic ca
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting David Kastrup :
>
>> Pavel Roskin writes:
>>
>>> Quoting Pavel Roskin :
>
>>> I'll try to identify the function tomorrow.
>>
>> That would be welcome. I looked through the function right now and saw
>> no obvious problematic candidate.
>
> It's Simultaneous_music_
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting Pavel Roskin :
>
>> Fedora 17 i386 has exactly the same problem.
>>
>> Let me try to find the file that needs to be compiled with -O1. I have
>> some ideas how to bisect the problem. I want to write a wrapper around
>> g++ that starts adding -O1 to the command lin
Quoting Pavel Roskin :
Fedora 17 i386 has exactly the same problem.
Let me try to find the file that needs to be compiled with -O1. I have
some ideas how to bisect the problem. I want to write a wrapper around
g++ that starts adding -O1 to the command line after N invocations.
The problemat
Quoting David Kastrup :
Any chance to compile using i386? If the problem persisted, it would
strongly point to the language frontend of g++ being involved. If it
vanishes, it can be either the backend or a general 32/64 bit
architecture problem.
Fedora 17 i386 has exactly the same problem.
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting David Kastrup :
>
>> Pavel Roskin writes:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I mentioned in passing that Fedora 17 (currently in beta) ships
>>> Lilypond 2.15.29 that reports bogus bar checks.
>>>
>>> It turns out that both the current Lilypond from git and Lilypond
>>> 2.14.2
Quoting David Kastrup :
Pavel Roskin writes:
Hello!
I mentioned in passing that Fedora 17 (currently in beta) ships
Lilypond 2.15.29 that reports bogus bar checks.
It turns out that both the current Lilypond from git and Lilypond
2.14.2 are miscompiled on the up-to-date Fedora 17 so they ex
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Hello!
>
> I mentioned in passing that Fedora 17 (currently in beta) ships
> Lilypond 2.15.29 that reports bogus bar checks.
>
> It turns out that both the current Lilypond from git and Lilypond
> 2.14.2 are miscompiled on the up-to-date Fedora 17 so they exhibit the
> same
Hello!
I mentioned in passing that Fedora 17 (currently in beta) ships
Lilypond 2.15.29 that reports bogus bar checks.
It turns out that both the current Lilypond from git and Lilypond
2.14.2 are miscompiled on the up-to-date Fedora 17 so they exhibit the
same problem.
That's the minima
24 matches
Mail list logo
