Randal T. Rioux napsal(a):
On Mon, September 8, 2008 9:38 am, Randal T. Rioux wrote:
Found a kludgy fix!
cp /usr/local/lib/sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1 /usr/sfw/lib/sparcv9/
Now, both OpenSSL and PostgreSQL work great. In 64-bit mode.
If anyone has a less hack-ish solution, please share.
try to
Randal T. Rioux napsal(a):
On Wed, September 10, 2008 10:54 am, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
I just don't like the Solaris package system in general. It is, dare I
say, worse than RPM. But this is a PostgreSQL list, so I'll save the rant!
Community solaris "package" on postgresql download website i
Randal T. Rioux wrote:
Found a kludgy fix!
cp /usr/local/lib/sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1 /usr/sfw/lib/sparcv9/
Now, both OpenSSL and PostgreSQL work great. In 64-bit mode.
If anyone has a less hack-ish solution, please share.
Thanks!
Randy
Not sure if this'll make it to the list or not, I'm not
On Wed, September 10, 2008 10:54 am, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>>> Three questions (yeah, you forbided ask, but ...)
>>
>> grumble grumble grumble...
>>
>>> 1) Why 64
>>>
>>> 64bit code on SPARC is slower, because SPARC uses 4byte instructions
>>> and processing 64bit data needs more instructions. It is
Randal T. Rioux napsal(a):
On Tue, September 9, 2008 5:25 am, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Randal T. Rioux napsal(a):
I've battled this for a while. I'm finally breaking down and asking for
help.
If you're answer to this is "why 64-bit" then don't answer. You wouldn't
understand. Same if you say "why
On Mon, September 8, 2008 9:38 am, Randal T. Rioux wrote:
> On Mon, September 8, 2008 12:06 am, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/ssl/lib/libssl.so
>> ...
>>> libgcc_s.so.1 => (file not found)
>>
>> Smoke, meet gun ...
>>
>>> Now
On Tue, September 9, 2008 5:25 am, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Randal T. Rioux napsal(a):
>> I've battled this for a while. I'm finally breaking down and asking for
>> help.
>>
>> If you're answer to this is "why 64-bit" then don't answer. You wouldn't
>> understand. Same if you say "why don't you use p
Randal T. Rioux napsal(a):
I've battled this for a while. I'm finally breaking down and asking for help.
If you're answer to this is "why 64-bit" then don't answer. You wouldn't
understand. Same if you say "why don't you use packages."
Here is my scenerio:
- Sun 420R x450Mhz UltraSPARC-II / 4
Tom Lane napsal(a):
I'm not a Solaris user
I can sent you a installation media ;-), if you want.
, but I'd be kinda surprised if Solaris' own
libraries were built with gcc --- Sun has their own compiler no?
Yes, sun studio. It is not installed by default, but it is possible to
download i
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Randal T. Rioux wrote:
On Sat, September 6, 2008 8:21 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not a Solaris user, but I'd be kinda surprised if Solaris' own
libraries were built with gcc --- Sun has their own compiler no?
They released the instructions for how they were building their of
On Mon, September 8, 2008 12:06 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/ssl/lib/libssl.so
> ...
>> libgcc_s.so.1 => (file not found)
>
> Smoke, meet gun ...
>
>> Now why would libssl.so not be linked to libgcc_s.so.1? Why woul
"Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/ssl/lib/libssl.so
...
> libgcc_s.so.1 => (file not found)
Smoke, meet gun ...
> Now why would libssl.so not be linked to libgcc_s.so.1? Why would
> PostgreSQL care and not Apache?
Well, it is "linked", but
On Sun, September 7, 2008 12:47 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sat, September 6, 2008 8:21 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ldd or local equivalent might help debug this.
>
>> bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/lib/sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1
>> libc.so.1 => /lib/64/li
"Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, September 6, 2008 8:21 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> ldd or local equivalent might help debug this.
> bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/lib/sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1
> libc.so.1 => /lib/64/libc.so.1
> libm.so.2 => /lib/64/libm.so.2
>
On Sat, September 6, 2008 8:21 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sat, September 6, 2008 7:05 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> configure:19857: $? = 0 configure:19859: ./conftest ld.so.1:
>>> conftest: fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file or
>>> directory ./
"Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, September 6, 2008 7:05 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
>> configure:19857: $? = 0 configure:19859: ./conftest ld.so.1: conftest:
>> fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file or directory ./configure:
>> line 19860: 20583 Killed ./conftest$ac_exeext
On Sat, September 6, 2008 7:05 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> checking checking blah blah checking test program...
>> failed configure: error: Could not execute a simple test program. This
>> may be a problem related to locating shared libraries. Check
"Randal T. Rioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> checking checking blah blah
> checking test program... failed
> configure: error:
> Could not execute a simple test program. This may be a problem
> related to locating shared libraries. Check the file 'config.log'
> for the exact reason.
> Th
I've battled this for a while. I'm finally breaking down and asking for help.
If you're answer to this is "why 64-bit" then don't answer. You wouldn't
understand. Same if you say "why don't you use packages."
Here is my scenerio:
- Sun 420R x450Mhz UltraSPARC-II / 4GB RAM
- Solaris 10 05/08
-
19 matches
Mail list logo
