From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from conssluserg-06.nifty.com (conssluserg-06.nifty.com [210.131.2.91]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86E77386FC00 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 17:22:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 86E77386FC00 Received: from Express5800-S70 (y084232.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [118.243.84.232]) (authenticated) by conssluserg-06.nifty.com with ESMTP id 14JHLZgR025008; Thu, 20 May 2021 02:21:36 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com 14JHLZgR025008 X-Nifty-SrcIP: [118.243.84.232] Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 02:21:38 +0900 From: Takashi Yano To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: openblas-0.3.14-1 Message-Id: <20210520022138.0ea95c61aa19bd48313f4849@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: References: <20210519181218.de23e36e1fcec21656f274a6@nifty.ne.jp> <07f0d952-50ae-6f77-68e2-d7afe202e189@gmail.com> <20210519232536.aa90bcb1d6986af74b0d865f@nifty.ne.jp> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 17:22:13 -0000 On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:24:56 +0200 Marco Atzeri wrote: > On 19.05.2021 16:25, Takashi Yano wrote: > > Hi, Marco > > > I have built openblas 0.3.15 locally, and confirmed that > > it works fine with Core i7 870 (Lynnfield). > > > > I will test it if you provide the test version of 0.3.15. > > > > P.S. > > The same issue happnes also with Xeon X5680 and v0.3.14. > > Hi Takashi > > the 64bit 0.3.15 is up. > 32 bit version will follow I have confirmed that the issue has been fixed in v0.3.15. Thank you for the quick response. -- Takashi Yano