On Sep 10, 2:31 pm, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 11, 1:31 am, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Buthttp://r.research.att.com/tools/#gcc42provideshttp://r.research.att.c... > > > which will do the installation of "10.4u", whatever this means, > > > Yeah, I'm not sure what this is either, > > > > Apple's SDK with gcc42 and gfortran42. > > > > So yes, it's the missing gcc42 for MacOSX 10.4, u(nstable?) > > > IMHO for that few 10.4 systems that are left around, it's good enough > > > - it's certainly no worse than using some rather > > > old (4.0) version of gcc... > > > Do you think it will be possible to install this side-by-side with the > > Xcode? I'm just scared that I'll hose my compiler by downloading > > this :( > > yes, I think it is jolly possible; it's just a tar file, so you can > have a look what you get. As far as I can see no Xcode files get > overwritten. > > > > > > > > > > > but I would be very > > > > happy if that were the case. But ADC says "This release provides > > > > additional GCC and LLVM compiler options, general bug fixes, and must > > > > be installed on Leopard, Mac OS X 10.5.0 and higher." And in the > > > > documentation it says "Xcode 3.1.2 is compatible with Intel and > > > > PowerPC Macs running Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard." You can develop for > > > > Tiger with it (even for Panther!) but can't actually run it > > > > (apparently) on Tiger. Also, one apparently can't even try, as only > > > > Leopard supports having multiple Xcode installations. > > > > > :( > > > > > > and ships gcc 4.2 as well as gcc 4.0. > > > > > Just on the off chance you've tried this successfully... Is it > > > > relatively trivial to get it to use gcc 4.2 only? I would be > > > > comfortable with requiring *developers* to have a later Xcode > > > > It's trivial (on 10.5, but same should certainly apply to 10.4u). > > > E.g one can change the links in /usr/bin manually (i.e. gcc there is a > > > link to gcc4.0, so you change it to gcc4.2, and the same for cc and g+ > > > +). > > > Ok, you've already lost me at "change the links in /usr/bin manually", > > though maybe I can figure it out. > > on the Xcode version I have (3.1.2) gcc, etc are just symbolic links: > $ ls -l /usr/bin/gcc* > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 7 Sep 10 17:50 /usr/bin/gcc -> gcc-4.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 93088 Feb 5 2009 /usr/bin/gcc-4.0 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 105680 Jul 7 2009 /usr/bin/gcc-4.2 > > $ ls -l /usr/bin/*fort* > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 12 Sep 10 17:55 /usr/bin/gfortran -> > gfortran-4.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 96136 Jan 26 2010 /usr/bin/gfortran-4.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 519200 Jan 26 2010 /usr/bin/i686-apple- > darwin9-gfortran-4.2.1 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 523296 Jan 26 2010 /usr/bin/powerpc-apple- > darwin9-gfortran-4.2.1 > > In order to get this, I did > cd /usr/bin > sudo ln -sf gcc-4.2 gcc > sudo ln -sf gcc-4.2 cc > sudo ln -sf g++-4.2 g++ > sudo ln -sf gfortran-4.2 gfortran > > That's it. (I don't know how to set this up in Xcode's GUI, but it's > not needed for Sage). > There are other ways: e.g. you can put these links to gcc-4.2 etc to > another directory that comes ahead of /usr/bin > in your PATH. Then, as long as your PATH is set this way, calling gcc > would call gcc-4.2 > > In order to switch back to gcc4.0 I can do > cd /usr/bin > sudo ln -sf gcc-4.0 gcc > sudo ln -sf gcc-4.0 cc > sudo ln -sf g++-4.0 g++ > > Well, if you managed to nuke your Xcode you could always reinstall... > > > But more practically, would I have > > to do some variable exporting before doing Sage? Or would this alone > > make everything go solidly? > > What about for the Fortran part? > > the above fixes it. I noticed one minor problem with this gfortran: > one needs to specify > the location of libgfortran.a when using it as a linker, but that's > also trivially done. > > > > > Or, again, maybe we could provide the 4.2 binary and the gfortran > > binary directly inside Sage, and use that for all gcc and cc and g++ > > and whatever else there is that I don't know about... > > > Anyway, changing how we support a particular platform probably > > deserves more discussion than its received on this thread, so for now > > I'll wait to see if it worked for you to use this toolkit to build > > Sage successfully (e.g. 4.6.alpha0) and then maybe I'll take a leap on > > *one* of my 10.4 boxes to see if it works. > > Sure. I'll keep you posted on this.
Thanks. This certainly all sounds promising, and I can try it myself if it works for you. - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
