This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: undefined reference to `__sync_fetch_and_add_4' with OpenMP
- From: FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Ignacio Fernández Galván" <jellby at yahoo dot com>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:12:30 +0000
- Subject: Re: undefined reference to `__sync_fetch_and_add_4' with OpenMP
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=LTeXnLUAH9bW5sEm1E5EOtbLrbuXnpBSEn2ZJnGAwlw=; b=K0pxQNCkackW5rdD9cR83jDwOzadmpZgsxTjEOEFmP3GHClRsp3VNSmfmyvfMuPtF5Tq9xOC+hCIcXq6Rc65lilbUeKzkCLQei30qF+WBEBvjWAywFh8VRu5TK+9EmtBi45EJ5Nec3oBlNX8CSVNlXNZLLoB46/lBaMytukgg6o=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MOKlVkkoFCXOg8hOoa8Ek/bYZC8RYglwJaFJdzgbgyLl+ztutXToycR6drzhwaODA9rZSbKAvmT3hE7ZIX+t896ohNCpblCDk3XbN6t1OBB1WjqcNR/aXzO/ElXC8v6LJQwW5h/y4YkxB4Ym9mzWCIYCBha/FiLJCa4/OatHe88=
- References: <616014.44378.qm@web33015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <19c433eb0802070451p20fa752ao4b5ad973dd752ca9@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c000802070502w56724e3bx7037234d223ea0cd@mail.gmail.com>
> You need a CPU that supports __sync_fetch_and_add_4 - I suppose
> you add -march=i486 (at least). (You run on 32bit ia32, right?)
Thanks Richard, I never realized that. As a matter of fact, the
binaries I build and distribute for Linux, MacOS and Windows, are
configure with --build=i386-*. I did it because I thought it might be
best not to exclude any particular processor type, but if good OpenMP
support requires more that i386, I will probably change it to i586 (so
that people have a good first experience with gfortran, without having
to add -march). Does anyone see a reason why i686 would be still
better than i586? Is there anyone around here who still uses a bare
i{3,4}86 are would like to complain about that change?
--
FX Coudert
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uccafco/