-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 370
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
make check fails when using gcc 7.3 #180
Comments
As gcc 7.3 is rather new, I also tested gcc 7.2 -- same problem. |
Could you please tell us:
|
|
OK, I can replicate this and will look into it. |
Thank you very much for your quick response! |
No problem, thanks for the bug report. Look like a doozy! |
My default assumption is that this is a compiler bug, given that so many compilers before/other than gcc 7.2/7.3 do not show any problems. (Granted, it's always possible we're using some sloppy syntax that is no longer forgiven in those versions.) @devinamatthews Thanks for looking into this. |
@mrader1248 we've found the problem and I believe @fgvanzee is working on a fix (unless you want me to do it). |
@devinamatthews I'll commit a fix to the issue @mrader1248 pointed out. Thanks for your help identifying the root cause. |
@mrader1248 Please try e2192a8 and let us know if the test failures persist or go away. Thanks for your feedback. |
Thank you very much for your great help! Now everything works as expected. Looking forward to benchmarking. |
@mrader1248 Glad we were able to fix your problem. (Devin tracked down the issue quickly.)
While the Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, Kabylake, Coffeelake, and Zen microarchitectures are all distinct, they actually share roughly the same instruction set (at least for our purposes) and number of vector registers. The net effect of this is that we can recycle kernel code across those microarchitectures, even if each of those systems would ideally use different cache blocksizes (which can be encoded in the individual sub-configurations, e.g. So, we could have labeled the kernels as
I'm not sure if I understand the question. If you are asking if this commit will be merged into If you are asking if this commit will make it into the next version number, the answer is the same (yes). Please note that when we bump the version number is somewhat arbitrary. But rest assured that there is nothing special about using a commit that has a fresh version number; it's just an arbitrary milestone. We are constantly making improvements, in part thanks to great feedback from contributors such as yourself, and so we strongly encourage our users, especially those engaged with developers, to use the head commit of the |
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, to be 'git-precise': I wanted to know whether this commit will be merged into Thank you all again for your help! |
@mrader1248 Would you care to reveal your real name so I can acknowledge your contribution in our upcoming 0.3.1 announcement? No worries if you'd rather stay anonymous. |
It's Michael Rader, but in the end you did the job, I just found a bug. |
@mrader1248 Thanks Michael. Nevertheless, we like to acknowledge such contributions. (The ability to fix a bug does us no good if we don't know the bug exists.) |
I have successfully built and tested BLIS with icc (2015) using
make check
. However, when I use gcc 7.3 together with the binutils 2.30 (on the same machine), some tests fail. As far as I can tell, only real test cases are affected. I ranconfigure
with the options--enable-shared --enable-static --enable-blas --enable-cblas
. Attached to this message you can find the blocks ofoutput.testsuite
where test cases fail.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: