Re: [cfarm-users] Missing "make" on gcc210 or gcc211.fsffrance.org / or wrong autoconf - any idea?

On 2022-10-30 02:22, Jaroslav Fojtik via cfarm-users wrote: I am asking, is this standard on solaris not to have installed make but gmake instead? No, on traditional Solaris 10, traditional 'make' is /usr/ccs/bin/make (part of the SUNWsprot package) or /usr/xpg4/bin/make (part of the SUNWxc

Re: [cfarm-users] Migration of gcc119

On 8/20/23 21:19, Peter Gutmann via cfarm-users wrote: As someone in a time zone 12-24 hours ahead of most of the systems I use ? Time zone shouldn't matter. I run into problems with cfarm clock skew all the time, and it's never the time zone. ___

Re: [cfarm-users] Migration of gcc119

On 8/20/23 21:56, Peter Gutmann wrote: If you bundle something up on a system that's (say) 12 hours ahead of the target system and unpack it there, many of the files will have dates up to 12 hours in the future Not if "12 hours ahead" merely means a time zone difference. Tarball timestamps use

Re: [cfarm-users] Migration of gcc119

On 8/20/23 22:25, Peter Gutmann wrote: It's not buggy, it's just a poorly-designed archive format. Why not use tar? Or, if for some reason you must use an archive format that is sensitive to time zone, why not set TZ when extracting? That would be simpler than fiddling with file timestamps af

Re: [cfarm-users] GCC119 and XLC/C++

On 10/1/23 10:10, Jeffrey Walton via cfarm-users wrote: No doubt Clang will define __xlC__ but fail to compile a program written for xlC, like one using __vcipher, __vcipherlast, __vshasigmaw and __vshasigmad (AES and SHA intrinsics). There are quite a few changes in Open XL C/C++ for AIX 17.1.

Re: [cfarm-users] account email address

On 12/13/23 01:44, Segher Boessenkool via cfarm-users wrote: PubkeyAcceptedKeyTypes +ssh-rsa HostKeyAlgorithms +ssh-rsa in the host-specific part of .ssh/config, so the most immediate issue is solved. I also use KexAlgorithms +diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha1 for some old machin

Re: [cfarm-users] POSIX shells

If you're interested in porting to Solaris 10, I suggest reading the Autoconf documentation, which talks about the various pitfalls of Solaris 10's multiple implementation of awk, sh, grep, etc. See: https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.72/html_node/Portable-Sh

Re: [cfarm-users] Is anywhere on compile farm installed GCC-15? GCC 14 seems to have severe issue.

On 2024-09-29 09:22, Jaroslav Fojtik via cfarm-users wrote: It is really a trap when something expected to work stops working, after new GCC release. As seen in the code in question was always nonportable and nonconforming. Although users

Re: [cfarm-users] Compile Farm acceptable usage---low priority batch jobs

On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users wrote: Perhaps a combination of nice(1) and ulimit(1) would be suitable? Not for mining, no. It would still consume resources that are better used for cfarm's intended purposes. I would suggest ... making very clear that "mining" for pr

Re: [cfarm-users] Compile Farm acceptable usage---low priority batch jobs

On 2025-01-01 18:54, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: I am suggesting allowing /testing/ "miner" software, not /using/ it. That's not a rule that we can enforce. There are countermeasures to any practical enforcement mechanism, including the mechanisms you suggested. It's better to steer clear of this