Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <46927F03.8040908@roguewave.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:31:31 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: config with wide has no effect on Solaris/Intel + patch
References: <d21d65950707071209r1fe0b9b3wdc96b221477c9094@mail.gmail.com>
	 <d21d65950707071227k1fd1438aud54dee6b271f5205@mail.gmail.com>
	 <469000DE.9070404@roguewave.com>
 <d21d65950707071532m4b97f2a8l692b6d925dc41686@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d21d65950707071532m4b97f2a8l692b6d925dc41686@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael van der Westhuizen wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On 7/7/07, Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> I recall reading somewhere that Sun C++ 5.9 supports the gcc -m64
>> option but I can't find the reference. Do you happen to have a link?
>> The x86 equivalent I was able to find in the online documentation is
>> still -xarch=amd64 (I couldn't find -m64 in the manual):
>> http://docs.sun.com/source/819-3690/Comp_Options_App.html#pgfId-999544
> 
> I picked the flags up here -
> http://developers.sun.com/sunstudio/documentation/ss12/whatsnew.html

Ah, that's the page I read! Thanks!

> 
> The xarch flags used result in compile-time warnings with C++ 5.9, so
> the -mXX options are really necessary.

Agreed. I created a separate issue for this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-479

> 
> It's possible to further tune the generated code using non-deprecated
> -xarch options - there are details in the links above.
> 
>> We're only just getting around to setting up the compiler but once it's
>> up and running we'll test your patch with it.
> 
> I've found quite a few issues with C++ 5.9, so we'll probably stick to
> 5.8+patches for now - at least until the obvious optimiser bugs are
> worked out.
> 
> I've logged a compile-time showstopper (a ube assertion that crops up
> in both 4.1.3 and 4.2.0) with bugs.sun.com, but I haven't logged a
> runtime problem with the numeric limits configuration test which makes
> it impossible to compile with any optimisation on sparcv8/sparcv9 (I
> haven't had time to look into the problem).

Ugh. Sounds like we have some work to do...

> 
> I'm also seeing the support/atomic* tests timing out on the i386 and
> amd64 - this is unexpected, but I haven't had time to look into this
> yet.

Check the list and Jira in case we figure out before you do
(otherwise keep us posted -- thanks!)

Martin

> 
> Some of the tests are also hitting backend corner cases - I've never
> seen the UBE take as much memory as it does now, and I've never seen
> it use a whole CPU before:
>  7723 michael   315M  312M cpu0     0    0   0:05:43  50% ube/1
> 
> Michael