[GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-06 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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 -

Re: [GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-06 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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

Re: [GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-06 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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:

Re: [GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-07 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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.

Re: [GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-08 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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

Re: [GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-09 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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 w

Re: [GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-09 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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 => (

Re: [GENERAL] 64-bit Compile Failure on Solaris 10 with OpenSSL

2008-09-10 Thread Randal T. Rioux
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