Hi Michael, So the previous problem disappeared, but I ran into 2 more problems, one of which is still unresolved. It has been reported earlier that the fortran compiler that comes with sage does not work well with Archlinux. The work-around the Archlinux group used was to set 2 environmental variables:
export SAGE_FORTRAN=/usr/bin/gfortran export SAGE_FORTRAN_LIB=/usr/lib/libgfortran.so (Again, I was a bad boy and I first tried using ifort instead, resulting in more problems than I can handle...) But further along the compilation, I got stuck here: ld -o polybori/libpolybori-0.5.0.so.0.0.0 -shared -Wl,- soname,libpolybori-0.5.0.so.0 Cudd/obj/cuddObj.os Cudd/util/ state.os ...... ld: unrecognized option '-Wl,-soname,libpolybori-0.5.0.so.0' ld: use the --help option for usage information scons: *** [polybori/libpolybori-0.5.0.so.0.0.0] Error 1 scons: building terminated because of errors. Error building PolyBoRi. $ ld -v GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.19.0.20081119 I've uploaded my install.log: http://individual.utoronto.ca/davidshih/sage-3.2.2-build-failed-install.log.bz2 Thanks, David On Jan 13, 9:42 pm, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
