On Friday, March 1, 2013 11:47:33 AM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:31:43 AM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>>
>> But only on one of the two machines.
>> On the other one it segfaulted later during gc build:
>> /sage-5.7-lame5/local/sparc-unknown-linux-gnu/sy
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:31:43 AM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> But only on one of the two machines.
> On the other one it segfaulted later during gc build:
> /sage-5.7-lame5/local/sparc-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include-g -O2 -O2
> -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qua
But only on one of the two machines.
On the other one it segfaulted later during gc build:
/sage-5.7-lame5/local/sparc-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include-g -O2 -O2 -g
-O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./in
I got a working gcc by exporting ABI=32 so that MPIR is 32 bits and
issueing "sparc32 make" rather than "make" so that GCC does not try to
build 64 bits apps by default, the build is now going one with other spkg.
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:55:54 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2013
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:38:24 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:41:15 PM UTC+1, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>> On 28 February 2013 16:12, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>> > For info, I'm trying to build Sage on a Debian sparc64, and it failed
>> >
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:41:15 PM UTC+1, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> On 28 February 2013 16:12, Jean-Pierre Flori >
> wrote:
> > For info, I'm trying to build Sage on a Debian sparc64, and it failed
> > because by default gcc produces 32 bits objects but then MPIR (and MPFR
> and
>
On 28 February 2013 16:12, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> For info, I'm trying to build Sage on a Debian sparc64, and it failed
> because by default gcc produces 32 bits objects but then MPIR (and MPFR and
> MPC) decided to be smart enough to build as 64 bits, and then when Sage
> tried to build its o
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:55:54 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2013-02-28 17:12, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> > For info, I'm trying to build Sage on a Debian sparc64, and it failed
> > because by default gcc produces 32 bits objects but then MPIR (and MPFR
> > and MPC) decided to
On 2013-02-28 17:12, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> For info, I'm trying to build Sage on a Debian sparc64, and it failed
> because by default gcc produces 32 bits objects but then MPIR (and MPFR
> and MPC) decided to be smart enough to build as 64 bits, and then when
> Sage tried to build its own GCC,
For info, I'm trying to build Sage on a Debian sparc64, and it failed
because by default gcc produces 32 bits objects but then MPIR (and MPFR and
MPC) decided to be smart enough to build as 64 bits, and then when Sage
tried to build its own GCC, which is 32 bits, it failed...
Exporting ABI=32 s
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 06:18, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:10:55 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-02-09 00:46, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> > But on OS X, this should be easy to test - assuming you can find the
>> > hardware with a sufficiently old version of
On Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:10:55 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-02-09 00:46, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> > But on OS X, this should be easy to test - assuming you can find the
> > hardware with a sufficiently old version of OS X
>
> Apparently this *only* applies to OS X 10.5, so the
On 9 February 2012 09:10, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-02-09 00:46, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> > But on OS X, this should be easy to test - assuming you can find the
> > hardware with a sufficiently old version of OS X
>
> Apparently this *only* applies to OS X 10.5, so the assumption is not so
On 2012-02-09 00:46, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> But on OS X, this should be easy to test - assuming you can find the
> hardware with a sufficiently old version of OS X
Apparently this *only* applies to OS X 10.5, so the assumption is not so
easy.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-de
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/ 8/12 09:11 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-02-08 16:37, David Kirkby wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, due to what appears to be a bug with Pynac, importing a
>>> lot of python modules, 64-bit binaries on Solaris do not run well.
On 02/ 8/12 09:11 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-02-08 16:37, David Kirkby wrote:
Unfortunately, due to what appears to be a bug with Pynac, importing a
lot of python modules, 64-bit binaries on Solaris do not run well.
So, if I understand you correctly, Sage *builds* but it doesn't actually
On 2012-02-08 16:37, David Kirkby wrote:
> Unfortunately, due to what appears to be a bug with Pynac, importing a
> lot of python modules, 64-bit binaries on Solaris do not run well.
So, if I understand you correctly, Sage *builds* but it doesn't actually
work properly? I actually meant "builds an
On 8 February 2012 12:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Does anyone here have a system on which
> * building without setting SAGE64 works
> * building with SAGE64=yes works
> * the result in both cases is actually different
>
>
Yes
> The whole SAGE64 thing seems like a huge hack.
I tend to agree
Does anyone here have a system on which
* building without setting SAGE64 works
* building with SAGE64=yes works
* the result in both cases is actually different
The whole SAGE64 thing seems like a huge hack. I'm also afraid that it
isn't tested much.
--
To post to this group, send an email
19 matches
Mail list logo
