Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-18 Thread Mike Alexander
--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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-18 Thread Kyle Husmann
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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-17 Thread Mike Alexander
--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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-17 Thread Keith J. Schultz
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:

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-17 Thread Kyle Husmann
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 __

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-17 Thread Keith J. Schultz
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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Kyle Husmann
> 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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Mike Alexander
--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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Kyle Husmann
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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Jeremy Lavergne
> 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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Jeremy Lavergne
> 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

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Scott Webster
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 ___

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Kyle Husmann
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 custom gcc version. (I would like to use gcc44). Her

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Kyle Husmann
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 need to do this: >> >> I've installed oc

Re: gcc version mismatches

2011-11-16 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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 tree, which uses gcc44. > I have

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Paul C
Config log for gcc46 attached. On 22/07/11 18:48, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: Can you please attach the *config.log* This is generated by running configure ... not the debug log which just shows the configure output. This file contains any messages produced by compilers while running configure, t

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Vincent Lefevre
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-22 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
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"

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
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. >>> >>>

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
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:

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Daniel J. Luke
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Daniel J. Luke
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Daniel J. Luke
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Jason Swails
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. >

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Drechsel Wolf
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

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Paul C
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. Thanks. Paul On 21/07/11 15:43, Jason Swails wrote: Y

Re: GCC Version

2011-07-21 Thread Jason Swails
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. To make things easier, you could also install glib2 through MacPorts as well, and it will build the necessary components for