2009/6/21 Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net>: > > Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >> Before building gcc 4.4.0 on 't2' I needed to build mpfr, as it is >> perquisite for gcc. >> >> I built the latest version of mpfr (2.4.1) using the Sun supplied gcc >> 3.4.2 in /usr/sfw/bin. mpfr built and passed all 148 tests. >> >> >> With the aid: >> >> 1) The aid of a patch to atlas >> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6276 >> (still needs review) >> >> and >> >> >> 2) An update to binutils 2.19 >> >> the following Sage packages all build ok. >> >> atlas-3.8.3.p4 >> blas-20070724 >> bzip2-1.0.5 >> conway_polynomials-0.2 >> dir-0.1 >> eclib-20080310.p7 >> elliptic_curves-0.1 >> extcode-4.0.2 >> f2c-20070816.p1 >> flint-1.3.0.p1 >> fortran-20071120.p5 >> freetype-2.3.5.p0 >> gd-2.0.35.p1 >> gdmodule-0.56.p5 >> givaro-3.2.13rc2 >> gnutls-2.2.1.p1 >> graphs-20070722 >> gsl-1.10.p1 >> iml-1.0.1.p11 >> ipython-0.9.1 >> lapack-20071123.p0 >> libgcrypt-1.4.3.p0 >> libgpg_error-1.6.p0 >> libpng-1.2.35 >> linbox-1.1.6 >> matplotlib-0.98.5.3rc0-svn6910.p3 >> mercurial-1.1.2 >> mpir-1.2.p4 >> ntl-5.4.2.p7 >> numpy-1.3.0 >> opencdk-0.6.6 >> pari-2.3.3.p0 >> prereq-0.3 >> python-2.5.4.p1 >> readline-5.2.p6 >> sage_scripts-4.0.2 >> sqlite-3.5.3.p4 >> termcap-1.3.1.p0 >> zlib-1.2.3.p4 >> >> >> However, Sage includes mpfr 2.4.1 as one of its packages (the exact same >> version I used to build gcc). But in Sage, mpfr fails 20 of the tests. >> But Sage is not to blame!! >> >> Trying to build mpfr 2.4.1 outside of Sage with the gcc 4.4.0 compiler >> results in 20 test failures too. An attempt to reduce optimisation did >> not help. So to date, I'm unable to build mpfr 2.3.1 with gcc 4.4.0. >> >> This is of course one of those things that could have many reasons for >> the problem - mpfr, libtool, gcc, gnu assembler/linker ... etc etc. >> >> Last time I looked (an hour ago), the mpfr website was down, so I can't >> report this, or look to see if others had the same issue. >> > > > For what it is worth, I just built gcc 4.4.0 on my Sun Blade 2000 > (Solaris 10 update 6) but using the Sun assembler and linker. I > configured it with: > > $ gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.10 > Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure CC=/usr/sfw/bin/gcc > --prefix=/export/home/drkirkby/install-gcc-4.4.0-Sun-as-ld > --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-as --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld > --without-gnu-ld --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran > --with-mpfr-include=/export/home/drkirkby/install-mpfr-2.3.1/include > --with-mpfr-lib=/export/home/drkirkby/install-mpfr-2.3.1/lib > --with-gmp-include=/export/home/drkirkby/install-gmp-4.3.1/include > --with-gmp-lib=/export/home/drkirkby/install-gmp-4.3.1/lib > --with-libiconv-prefix=/usr/local > Thread model: posix > gcc version 4.4.0 (GCC) > drkir...@kestrel:[~/mp] $ > > After that, I used that gcc to build mpfr 2.4.1, which had failed > miserably with gcc 4.4.0 on 't2'. That resulted in all tests passed on > my Blade 2000. > > ==================== > All 148 tests passed > ==================== > > I'm just in the process of downloading sage 4.0.2 to my Blade 2000 and > will try to compile Sage 4.0.2 with the gcc 4.4.0 I built using the Sun > linker and assembler, rather than the GNU ones as Micheal's toolchain > used, and what I used when building gcc 4.4.0 on 't2'. > > There are a few things to make me suspect that gcc built with the Sun > linker and assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/as and /usr/ccs/bin/ld), rather than > the GBU ones from binutils, may be a better choice. These are: > > * Sun ship gcc, which uses their own linker and assembler. > * The developers of libtool, who clearly know a thing or two about > linking programs, think the GNU tools are a disaster on SPARC. > * Some comments from a Sun employee. > * General comments I've seen over the years. > > Does anyone know if Michael had a good reason for choosing the GNU > utils? It's very possible there is some code in Sage which assumes the > use of the GNU tools, and starts passing GNU-specific flags. In which > case, he may have felt he had no choice. I don;t know, but there is no > harm in trying to build with the Sun linker and assembler. Certainly for > mpfr, it was successful on my personal SPARC.
Michael worked on the Solaris port pretty much by himself, so I don't think anybody knows why he did anything in particular related to it. I do recall him swearing about linkers at several points, but I can't remember why. I strongly agree that there is no harm at all in building a toolchain on t2 on the Sun linker and assembler. It will always be there as a first test when you run into a problem building Sage. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
