On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM, mabshoff <michael.absh...@mathematik.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
> Well, "randomly" adding -m64 to CFLAGS is not a good idea since for > example gccs on RHEL/Itanium as well as MPIS64 boxen for example blow > up using that switch. I have never seen a 64 bit x86-64 system that > failed, so if compilation fails we might want to try again with -m64 > added. I never suggested that, I'm just wondering if the MPIR config stuff is using -m64 since it detects it as a 64bit OS while pathCC doesn't seem to support -m64 on this system for some reason, while GMP may not which is why it is working. > Is there a specific reason the pathscale cc on one system defaults to > 32 bit ABI and on the other system it doesn't since both of them are > 64 bit systems? Regardless of that this is still a bug in MPIR, so it > ought to be fixed. No idea, I didn't set up this system. It is intended to be used for GPU development so maybe here is a 32bit dependency for compiling CUDA apps? I have no idea, just a wild guess. Maybe it just wasn't set up properly. Jeff. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
