hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> writes:
> OK. Traced it back to JIT. With JIT enabled:
Hah, that's useful info. Seems like it must be incorrect code
generated by JIT.
> versions of things that I think are relevant:
> =$ dpkg -l | grep -E 'llvm|clang|gcc|glibc'
> ii gcc 4:9.3.0-1ubuntu2 arm64 GNU C compiler
> ii gcc-10-base:arm64 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04 arm64 GCC, the GNU Compiler
Collection(base package)
> ii gcc-9 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04 arm64 GNU C compiler
> ii gcc-9-base:arm64 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04 arm64 GCC, the GNU Compiler
Collection(base package)
> ii libgcc-9-dev:arm64 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04 arm64 GCC support library
(developmentfiles)
> ii libgcc-s1:arm64 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04 arm64 GCC support library
> ii libllvm9:arm64 1:9.0.1-12 arm64 Modular compiler and
toolchaintechnologies, runtime library
arm64, eh? I wonder if that's buggier than the Intel code paths.
I tried and failed to reproduce this on Fedora 35 on aarch64,
but that has what I think is a newer LLVM version:
clang-13.0.0-3.fc35.aarch64
clang-libs-13.0.0-3.fc35.aarch64
clang-resource-filesystem-13.0.0-3.fc35.aarch64
gcc-11.2.1-9.fc35.aarch64
gcc-c++-11.2.1-9.fc35.aarch64
llvm-13.0.0-4.fc35.aarch64
llvm-devel-13.0.0-4.fc35.aarch64
llvm-libs-13.0.0-4.fc35.aarch64
llvm-static-13.0.0-4.fc35.aarch64
llvm-test-13.0.0-4.fc35.aarch64
Don't think I can readily install anything as old as LLVM 9 ...
regards, tom lane