On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 05:51, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>
> On 9 February 2012 12:59, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 01:56, David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are a lot of packages in Sage which don't respect CC. I've fixed
>> > some
>> > of them, but gave up at some point as
On 9 February 2012 12:59, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 01:56, David Kirkby
> wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of packages in Sage which don't respect CC. I've fixed
> some
> > of them, but gave up at some point as there were too many. Is is funny,
> as
> > there are the odd packag
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 01:56, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>
> On 9 February 2012 09:38, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-02-09 10:34, David Kirkby wrote:
>> > No, one what would do in this case is
>> >
>> > ./configure CC="gcc -m64"
>>
>> Exactly. If every spkg would actually respect the CC environ
On 9 February 2012 09:38, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-02-09 10:34, David Kirkby wrote:
> > No, one what would do in this case is
> >
> > ./configure CC="gcc -m64"
>
> Exactly. If every spkg would actually respect the CC environment
> variable, this would work and we wouldn't need SAGE64 anym
On 2012-02-09 10:34, David Kirkby wrote:
> No, one what would do in this case is
>
> ./configure CC="gcc -m64"
Exactly. If every spkg would actually respect the CC environment
variable, this would work and we wouldn't need SAGE64 anymore.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@g
On 9 February 2012 08:39, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> About the SAGE64 stuff, right now when the option is tested it
> basically sets the different C??FLAGS to -m64 -g -O2
> As you pointed above I guess the -m64 forces gcc to produce 64 bits
> binaries even though the default is 32 bits, so I'm fi
