hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 (development files) > 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 toolchain technologies, 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
