From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: gnu: Add HISAT.
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:14:13 +0100
Message-ID: <idjpp9gl92i.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
References: <idjlhk772t8.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
	<87fvae8z7h.fsf@gnu.org>
	<idj8ug66p3y.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
	<20150211111501.GA5291@debian>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56664)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Ricardo.Wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>) id 1YLZvn-0001rZ-OQ
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:14:28 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Ricardo.Wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>) id 1YLZvi-0007oO-PT
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:14:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20150211111501.GA5291@debian>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>


Andreas Enge writes:

> the package fails to build on i686:
>    http://hydra.gnu.org/build/247325
> Could you maybe have a look?

Thanks for notifying me.

A recurring error is apparently related to embedded assembly
instructions:

~~~~~
...
bt2_idx.h: Assembler messages:
bt2_idx.h:489: Error: invalid instruction suffix for `popcnt'
...
~~~~~

I wrote the author an email to ask whether this can be fixed upstream
for other architectures than x86_64.  Until then should I just declare
x86_64 as the only supported architecture?

~~ Ricardo