Skip to content

Restore s390x support in root-config#406

Merged
peremato merged 1 commit intoroot-project:masterfrom
ellert:s390x
Mar 19, 2017
Merged

Restore s390x support in root-config#406
peremato merged 1 commit intoroot-project:masterfrom
ellert:s390x

Conversation

@ellert
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ellert ellert commented Mar 8, 2017

The s390x arch was lost from root-config. This restores the functionality.

@phsft-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@peremato peremato self-assigned this Mar 8, 2017
@martinmine
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@phsft-bot build!

@peremato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@phsft-bot build

2 similar comments
@peremato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@phsft-bot build

@peremato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@phsft-bot build

@peremato peremato merged commit d83e3c5 into root-project:master Mar 19, 2017
@ellert ellert deleted the s390x branch March 20, 2017 12:30
@Axel-Naumann
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hi Mattias,
I ripped it out. Do you actually have an s390x 31bit platform?!
Axel.

@ellert
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

ellert commented Mar 20, 2017

You are confusing 31 bit s390 with 64 bit s390x.

Fedora builds packages for s390x, and I did get a bug report in bugzilla that the package build failed on this architecture, which I tracked down to the problem reported here. Up to Fedora 23 they also used to build for s390, though this does not happen any more.

I also filed a bug report to you upstream about some failing tests in s390x. https://sft.its.cern.ch/jira/browse/ROOT-8703. The number of failing tests on s390x is on the same order as the number of failing tests on 32 bit arm (though the failing tests are not the same), and far fewer than the number of failing tests on ppc64 and ppc64le.

So while s390 is mostly obsolete, s390x is not. Also Debian builds their packages for s390x.

I would not mind if you removed support for s390 - it would make sense since llvm does not support it - but removing s390x would be unfortunate, and s390x is supported by llvm. But also s390 worked if you only used compilation and did not use the interpreter.

@Axel-Naumann
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks a lot for explaining, Mattias! And yes, I am aware of your ROOT-8703. Thanks for your endurance and continuous flow of contributions!

gganis pushed a commit to gganis/root that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2017
saisoma123 added a commit to saisoma123/root that referenced this pull request Jun 12, 2022
…use this was mentioned in the meta issue list (root-project#406 in cling) as one of the rewrite steps. This also allows for the main code to be run as opposed to running the main code plus the function defintions.
saisoma123 added a commit to saisoma123/root that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2022
Added new main block because this was mentioned in the meta issue
list (root-project#406 in cling) as one of the rewrite steps. This also allows for
the main code to be run as opposed to running the main code plus the
function defintions.
vgvassilev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2022
Added new main block because this was mentioned in the meta issue
list (#406 in cling) as one of the rewrite steps. This also allows for
the main code to be run as opposed to running the main code plus the
function defintions.
j-mathe pushed a commit to j-mathe/root that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2022
Added new main block because this was mentioned in the meta issue
list (root-project#406 in cling) as one of the rewrite steps. This also allows for
the main code to be run as opposed to running the main code plus the
function defintions.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants