incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Tue, 04 Sep 2012 04:25:07 GMT
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Stefan Teleman
<> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Liviu Nicoara <> wrote:
>> I tried, unsuccessfully, to reproduce the failure observed by Martin in,
in both debug and optimized, wide and narrow builds on a 16x machine:
> I can reproduce it consistently on Solaris without the patches. It has
> a very high failure rate. It's also been reported at least once
> before, here:
> I remember there were more hits about in Google
> when I searched for it a while ago, but I didn't look as closely now.
> I'll create a Solaris build without my patches tomorrow and send the output.

FWIW, my today's builds without the patches with the Intel compiler:

__INTEL_COMPILER_BUILD_DATE = 20111011, __EDG_VERSION__ = 403 ran for 3 hours (wall clock time) without ever
completing or doing anything except flatlining the cpu at 115%, on
both 32-bit and 64-bit. This is on:

0:21:13][1181]>> uname -a
Linux 3.5.0-2.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Jul
30 14:48:59 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

I can't (yet) rebuild with GCC 4.7.0 because Fedora 17's build of GCC
C++ is a mess (libsupc++.a requires TLS but glibc was built with TLS


Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.

View raw message