--On November 18, 2011 2:17:26 AM -0800 Kyle Husmann
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Keith J. Schultz
wrote:
Just good programming practices and experience.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Mike
Alexander wrote:
I learned what I know about it from experience and talking to other
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
> Just good programming practices and experience.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
> I learned what I know about it from experience and talking to other
> developers.
Are there some simple rules of thumb I can follo
--On November 17, 2011 12:32:58 AM -0800 Kyle Husmann
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Keith J. Schultz
wrote:
Yet, as long as you are aware what you are doing and the
"subtleties" of mixing compilers and libraries you are on the safe
side.
Where can one learn these "subtleties"? D
Hi Kyle,
Sorry, I do know of any courses or resources.
Just like there are no true resources for mixing languages.
Just good programming practices and experience.
regards
Keith.
Am 17.11.2011 um 09:32 schrieb Kyle Husmann:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Keith J. Schultz
> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
> Yet, as long as you are aware what you are doing and the
> "subtleties" of mixing compilers and libraries you are on the safe side.
Where can one learn these "subtleties"? Do you have any good resources
I can peruse?
Thanks,
Kyle
__
Hi All,
Generally, mixing compilers should not be a problem to the experienced
programmer
as long as s/he is aware that they are mixing them.
Naturally, using a single compiler is easier. Yet, as long as you are aware
what you are doing and the
"subtleties" of mixing compilers and libraries y
On Nov 16, 2011, at 23:00, Kyle Husmann wrote:
>> Ok. What solution are you advocating?
>
> Sorry, I don't have any solutions at the moment. Frankly this is out
> of my expertise. I like your idea to mix and match the fsf fortran
> compiler with the osx toolchain though.
>
> Still, it would be
> Ok. What solution are you advocating?
Sorry, I don't have any solutions at the moment. Frankly this is out
of my expertise. I like your idea to mix and match the fsf fortran
compiler with the osx toolchain though.
Still, it would be nice to give the user the option to maintain an
entire macport
--On November 16, 2011 10:41:15 PM -0600 Ryan Schmidt
wrote:
Is it only Apple gcc that's a problem? If so, does that mean the
problem is already resolved when using Xcode 4 on Lion and Snow
Leopard, where the default compiler is not gcc, but Apple llvm-gcc or
Apple clang (depending on Xcode ve
On Nov 16, 2011, at 21:56, Kyle Husmann wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> That sounds like a possibility. But my understand was that *usually* the
>> mismatched stdc library versions aren't a problem, but that in some rare
>> cases it is.
>
> I think if apple shipp
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> That sounds like a possibility. But my understand was that *usually* the
> mismatched stdc library versions aren't a problem, but that in some rare
> cases it is.
I think if apple shipped with a gnu stdc, everything would be just
fine becau
> I'm not sure what order that would upgrade the ports in. It might not be in
> dependency order. Also, I think this will probably rebuild ports multiple
> times, once for each time it appears as a dependency.
>
> You're better off uninstalling all ports, then installing the ports you want.
So
On Nov 16, 2011, at 21:33, Kyle Husmann wrote:
>> But of course many of the science ports are not islands
>> -- they have dependencies on other "regular" software
>> like graphics libraries, which we don't put compiler variants in.
>
> Right. Does this mean that any science library that depends
On Nov 16, 2011, at 21:37, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>> How do I
>> force compilation of all the packages?
>
> Something like:
> sudo port -f -s upgrade installed
I'm not sure what order that would upgrade the ports in. It might not be in
dependency order. Also, I think this will probably rebuild
> How do I
> force compilation of all the packages?
Something like:
sudo port -f -s upgrade installed
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Kyle Husmann wrote:
> Also, I've found another hitch when adding the
> "configure.compiler=macports-gcc-4.4" command: It doesn't
> automatically rebuild ports that have binary distributions. How do I
> force compilation of all the packages?
port -s
___
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Kyle Husmann wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 20:40, Kyle Husmann wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering if it is possible to build the entire macports tree with
>>> a cu
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 20:40, Kyle Husmann wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering if it is possible to build the entire macports tree with
>> a custom gcc version. (I would like to use gcc44). Here's why I think
>> I
On Nov 16, 2011, at 20:40, Kyle Husmann wrote:
> I'm wondering if it is possible to build the entire macports tree with
> a custom gcc version. (I would like to use gcc44). Here's why I think
> I need to do this:
>
> I've installed octave-devel from the macports tr
Hi all,
I'm wondering if it is possible to build the entire macports tree with
a custom gcc version. (I would like to use gcc44). Here's why I think
I need to do this:
I've installed octave-devel from the macports tree, which uses gcc44.
I have have some programs (outside of macp
On Jul 22, 2011, at 13:17, Paul C wrote:
> Config log for gcc46 attached.
It says:
ld warning: in /opt/local/lib/libmpc.dylib, file is not of required architecture
ld warning: in /opt/local/lib/libmpfr.dylib, file is not of required
architecture
ld warning: in /opt/local/lib/libgmp.dylib, file
.-]*$/s/$/-4.0/ --with-gxx-include-dir=/include/c++/4.0.0 --with-slibdir=/usr/lib --build=i686-apple-darwin9 --program-prefix= --host=powerpc-apple-darwin9 --target=powerpc-apple-darwin9
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5493)
configure:4195: $? = 0
configure:4184: /usr/bin/gcc-4.0
Can you please attach the *config.log* This is generated by running configure
... not the debug log which just shows the configure output.
On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Paul C wrote:
> Here are the results from what I assume are the correct files:
>
> $ file ./libmpfr.4.dylib
> ./libmpfr.4.dyl
On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:29, Paul C wrote:
> Irritatingly both gcc45 and gcc46 fail with the following output...
>
> checking for the correct version of gmp.h... yes
> checking for the correct version of mpfr.h... yes
> checking for the correct version of mpc.h... yes
> checking for the correct ve
On Jul 21, 2011, at 09:45, Paul C wrote:
> The main reason for the switch to a newer version of gcc is that I cannot
> compile glib2 with using the port command, it fails towards the end of the
> compile. I'll give gcc_select a go with a new version of gcc and see what
> happens.
MacPorts por
Just a thought, perhaps a missing symlink or three? I'm not sure what
the gcc build is *actually* looking for?
On 22/07/11 18:05, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Are you *sure* that gmp, mpfr, and mpc are ppc64? Did you run 'file' on the
libraries? config.log will provide more specific information
Here are the results from what I assume are the correct files:
$ file ./libmpfr.4.dylib
./libmpfr.4.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library ppc64
$ file ./libgmp.10.dylib
./libgmp.10.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library ppc64
$ file ./libmpc.2.dylib
./libmpc.2.d
Are you *sure* that gmp, mpfr, and mpc are ppc64? Did you run 'file' on the
libraries? config.log will provide more specific information as to what went
wrong...
On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Paul C wrote:
> On 22/07/11 15:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions
On 22/07/11 15:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/error-in-installing-gcc-4-5-0-a-818033/
As detailed in the forum thread in the link the problem I get installing gcc
is not specific to ppc or to MacPorts. It would seem to be a generic problem
acros
On 2011-07-22 09:59:35 +0100, Paul C wrote:
> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/error-in-installing-gcc-4-5-0-a-818033/
>
> As detailed in the forum thread in the link the problem I get installing gcc
> is not specific to ppc or to MacPorts. It would seem to be a generic probl
Coming back to an earlier post and after doing some more reading I have
found the following...
On 21/07/11 16:59, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Irritatingly both gcc45 and gcc46 fail with the following output...
checking for the correct version of gmp.h... yes
checking for the correct version of mp
It is for intel, but I haven't seen any comparisons for ppc.
On Jul 21, 2011, at 11:37, Paul C wrote:
> Oh well, clang failed too. I think I'll put some time to the side and
> recompile for ppc only.
>
> Is clang a better option than gcc speed wise?
> On Jul 21, 2011 7:16 PM, "Jeremy Huddleston"
Oh well, clang failed too. I think I'll put some time to the side and
recompile for ppc only.
Is clang a better option than gcc speed wise?
On Jul 21, 2011 7:16 PM, "Jeremy Huddleston" wrote:
> sudo port -v install clang
>
> Then use:
> configure.compiler=macports-clang
>
> On Jul 21, 2011, at 10
sudo port -v install clang
Then use:
configure.compiler=macports-clang
On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Paul C wrote:
> On 21/07/11 17:21, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
gcc45 does specify those --with-* options.
gcc46 doesn't build gfortran, so it shouldn't be checking for that.
>>>
>>>
On 21/07/11 17:21, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
gcc45 does specify those --with-* options.
gcc46 doesn't build gfortran, so it shouldn't be checking for that.
$ port info gcc46
gcc46 @4.6-20110325, Revision 1 (lang)
Variants: gfortran, java, (-)universal
Description: The GNU
On Jul 21, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Paul C wrote:
>
>
> On 21/07/11 16:59, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>>
>> gcc45 does specify those --with-* options.
>> gcc46 doesn't build gfortran, so it shouldn't be checking for that.
>
> $ port info gcc46
> gcc46 @4.6-20110325, Revision 1 (lang)
> Variants:
On 21/07/11 17:10, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
do you really need it to be ppc64?
Probably not, however this is the first time I've encountered what seems to be
a ppc64 specific error. I could recompile all packages to ppc but before that I
want to be sure it's absolutely required. I have a lot of
On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Paul C wrote:
>
> On 21/07/11 17:02, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> do you really need it to be ppc64?
>
> Probably not, however this is the first time I've encountered what seems to
> be a ppc64 specific error. I could recompile all packages to ppc but before
> that I w
On 21/07/11 16:59, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
gcc45 does specify those --with-* options.
gcc46 doesn't build gfortran, so it shouldn't be checking for that.
$ port info gcc46
gcc46 @4.6-20110325, Revision 1 (lang)
Variants: gfortran, java, (-)universal
Description: The G
On 21/07/11 17:02, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Paul C wrote:
One thing I can say that might be different is that my compile target is ppc64,
oh yeah, that would be the difference, my install is 'ppc' (the machine is an
old g4)
do you really need it to be ppc64?
Pro
On 21/07/11 16:59, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
gcc45 does specify those --with-* options.
gcc46 doesn't build gfortran, so it shouldn't be checking for that.
Where are you getting your gcc45 and gcc46 ports from?
Ports are downloading from the normal MacPorts sources.
You're better off using
On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Paul C wrote:
>
> One thing I can say that might be different is that my compile target is
> ppc64,
oh yeah, that would be the difference, my install is 'ppc' (the machine is an
old g4)
do you really need it to be ppc64?
--
Daniel J. Luke
One thing I can say that might be different is that my compile target is
ppc64, I use the machine as a development we server, and so far all
software has compiled just fine. I just seem to be having problems with
glib2.
The glib2 bug report I filed is here:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug
On Jul 21, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Paul C wrote:
> Irritatingly both gcc45 and gcc46 fail with the following output...
>
> checking for the correct version of gmp.h... yes
> checking for the correct version of mpfr.h... yes
> checking for the correct version of mpc.h... yes
> checking for the correct
On Jul 21, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Paul C wrote:
>
> I posted a bug report to the glib2 people and they suggested it was the old
> version of gcc that I have installed (4.0.x) causing the compile to fail,
> they also suggested that I try a more recent version, hence my questions here
> about using a
Irritatingly both gcc45 and gcc46 fail with the following output...
checking for the correct version of gmp.h... yes
checking for the correct version of mpfr.h... yes
checking for the correct version of mpc.h... yes
checking for the correct version of the gmp/mpfr/mpc libraries... no
configure: e
I posted a bug report to the glib2 people and they suggested it was the
old version of gcc that I have installed (4.0.x) causing the compile to
fail, they also suggested that I try a more recent version, hence my
questions here about using a newer version of gcc. :)
Cheers,
Paul
On 21/07/11
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Paul C wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The main reason for the switch to a newer version of gcc is that I cannot
> compile glib2 with using the port command, it fails towards the end of the
> compile. I'll give gcc_select a go with a new version of gcc and see what
> happens.
>
Yes, it's certainly possible. You have to install one of the newer
GCC
packages (gcc43, gcc44, gcc45, or gcc46), then install the gcc_select
package to toggle between them.
Works fine with me, too.
Yours, Wolf
___
macports-users mailing list
mac
hat
I assume is Xcode (3.1.4)?
I had complie errors on glib2 and after submitting a bug report to
the gnome people it might be down to the old version of gcc
installed not supporting various things.
Currently I have:
Power-Mac-G5:~ crispy$ gcc --version
powerpc-apple-dar
)?
>
> I had complie errors on glib2 and after submitting a bug report to the
> gnome people it might be down to the old version of gcc installed not
> supporting various things.
>
> Currently I have:
>
> Power-Mac-G5:~ crispy$ gcc --version
> powerpc-apple-darwin9
gcc installed not
supporting various things.
Currently I have:
Power-Mac-G5:~ crispy$ gcc --version
powerpc-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5493)
However I see the apple-gcc-42 and gcc46 available.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
Paul
Darren Weber:
Is there a general consensus, for the majority of ports without any
specific build dependency, on which version of gcc is preferred or
recommended for MacPorts?
I'd go with /usr/bin/gcc, as a generic recommendation.
(whether using MacPorts or just general on Mac OS X...)
It a
On 2009-05-15 02:00, Darren Weber wrote:
> This one is not in the FAQ, yet, so here we go.
>
> Is there a general consensus, for the majority of ports without any
> specific build dependency, on which version of gcc is preferred or
> recommended for MacPorts?
>
> The following gcc variants are av
On 2009-5-15 10:09, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2009-5-15 10:00, Darren Weber wrote:
>> This one is not in the FAQ, yet, so here we go.
>>
>> Is there a general consensus, for the majority of ports without any
>> specific build dependency, on which version of gcc is preferred or
>> recommended for MacP
On 2009-5-15 10:00, Darren Weber wrote:
> This one is not in the FAQ, yet, so here we go.
>
> Is there a general consensus, for the majority of ports without any
> specific build dependency, on which version of gcc is preferred or
> recommended for MacPorts?
The one that is in the configure.cc va
This one is not in the FAQ, yet, so here we go.
Is there a general consensus, for the majority of ports without any specific
build dependency, on which version of gcc is preferred or recommended for
MacPorts?
The following gcc variants are available:
[ dwe...@x ~ ]$ gcc_select -l
Available versi
On Dec 23, 2008, at 08:25, Roger Wehage wrote:
Is there an easy way to correct symbolic links to the executables
in gcc version 4.3.2 on Mac OS X?
I successfully installed MacPorts 1.7.0 (Darwin Ports?)
Hi Roger. Welcome to MacPorts! The project used to be called
DarwinPorts a long time
Hi,
Is there an easy way to correct symbolic links to the executables in
gcc version 4.3.2 on Mac OS X?
I successfully installed MacPorts 1.7.0 (Darwin Ports?) on my MacBook
Pro 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with version 10.5.6 OS. Then I
miraculously installed gcc43 version 4.3.2 with no
Chris Jones wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13 Dec
>>
>> OK, I'm currently rebuilding with gcc 4.2 so I'll see what happens.
>> I'll post a ticket when that is done.
>>
> Building with gcc 4.2 worked for me. Ticket available here.
>
> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/17643
>
> btw., I noticed a few other pr
Hi,
On 13 Dec
OK, I'm currently rebuilding with gcc 4.2 so I'll see what happens.
I'll post a ticket when that is done.
Building with gcc 4.2 worked for me. Ticket available here.
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/17643
btw., I noticed a few other problems when trying to build kdelibs wit
d all
suggest using gcc 4.2 instead of 4.0
So, I want to try this, but cannot figure out how I am suppose to
tell macports to use the newer gcc version (I have the latest Xcode
instead, so have both versions available).
Can someone point me to some instructions on how to change the gcc
ve
nt to try this, but cannot figure out how I am suppose to
tell macports to use the newer gcc version (I have the latest Xcode
instead, so have both versions available).
Can someone point me to some instructions on how to change the gcc
version that is used ?
You would add the
I am suppose to tell
macports to use the newer gcc version (I have the latest Xcode
instead, so have both versions available).
Can someone point me to some instructions on how to change the gcc
version that is used ?
cheers Chris
___
macports-
64 matches
Mail list logo
