On Jan 13, 6:29 pm, DavidS <davidshi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
Hi David,
> I don't think libpari.so was ever built (I can only find the comments
> for libpari.a in install.log). Perhaps I fouled things up when I built
> the first few packages (including libpari.so) with icc and icpc. I had
> wanted to upload my log, but I managed to mess my install.log up while
> trying to compress it with tar.
Ok, then this is no surprise there that things blow up. I would still
be interested in supporting more than gcc in the long term, but pari
might pass gcc specific options to ld so that icc chokes in that case.
Since libpari.so doesn't exist the linker then wants to use libpari.a
which rightly is build without PIC, so *boom*.
> I've done a make clean, and I am recompiling without setting any
> environmental variables. Hopefully everything goes according to plan
> this time.
Cool, if you run into any trouble please let us know.
> I don't have any empirical evidence that icc is faster; it's just the
> general message that I got when I googled. I guess I should compile
> python using icc and gcc and run a computationally intensive script
> that I've wrote for a homework project some time ago.
Well, I used to believe Intel that their compiler is better than gcc
for C and C++, but once I did some benchmarking on x86 and x86-64 that
turned out to be wrong with the C++ code I tried. On Itanium I could
imagine that icc is better than gcc, but I have no benchmarks. I am
sure Intel's Fortran compiler is better than gfortran, but I don't
usually work with Fortran code, so I have no personal experience here.
> Thanks,
> David
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
