subject:"ccc"

ccc

2003-02-20 Thread Joakim Roubert

Hi!

What exactly do the ccc-debian wrappers do?
I downloaded ccc-6.5.6.002, and wanted to install it; the ccc debian
package wants some older version, though... I tried to trick it by
renaming the file, but somehow that didn't work.

Well, I tried to install the rpm:s directly, but that was apparently not
the best thing to do...

Does anybody have an idea how I best install ccc here?

/Joakim
-- 
 http://www.efd.lth.se/~d97jro/

ccc

2003-03-22 Thread Joakim Roubert

Hi!

Today I gave the install of ccc another shot; I've failed so far.
(I suck.)

The latest rpm I found at Compaq was the ccc-6.5.6.002-1.alpha.rpm.
Running apt-get ccc for stable and unstable gives med the
ccc_6.5.9.001-1_alpha.deb, which prompts for ccc-6.5.9.001-1.alpha.rpm

I tried to rename the RPM in order to cheat the system, thinking it
wouldn't work. It didn't.

Before I try to make a manual workaround, is there a place to get a
ccc-6.5.9.001-1.alpha.rpm?

Last time I tried to pump ccc in my system I made .deb-packages with alien
-c as said might work on this list, but when installed, ccc complained
about not finding correct libraries and stuff.

Does anybody have some tricks or advice here?

Regards,

/Joakim
-- 
 http://www.efd.lth.se/~d97jro/

ccc .debs?

2000-11-14 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Greetings,

I'm trying to test alternative compilation of a package I maintain using
ccc/fort, but can only find ccc rpms.  Are there debs, or can I safely
alien and install the rpms?

The rpms seem to depend on newer cpml than is available in .deb, and
come with newer ladebug.  Can I alien and install them too safely- and
without breaking fort?

Thanks,

-Adam P.

  Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

Re: ccc

2003-02-20 Thread Ionut Georgescu

This is how I did it, without the ccc-debian wrapper:

http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/unix/ccc.html

Good Luck!
Ionut


On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 06:58:18PM +0100, Joakim Roubert wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> What exactly do the ccc-debian wrappers do?
> I downloaded ccc-6.5.6.002, and wanted to install it; the ccc debian
> package wants some older version, though... I tried to trick it by
> renaming the file, but somehow that didn't work.
> 
> Well, I tried to install the rpm:s directly, but that was apparently not
> the best thing to do...
> 
> Does anybody have an idea how I best install ccc here?
> 
> /Joakim
> -- 
>  http://www.efd.lth.se/~d97jro/
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
***
* Ionut Georgescu
* http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/
* Registered Linux User #244479
*
* "In Windows you can do everything Microsoft wants you to do; in Unix you
*can do anything the computer is able to do."

Re: ccc

2003-02-21 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Package: ccc
Joakim Roubert wrote:
Hi!
What exactly do the ccc-debian wrappers do?
I downloaded ccc-6.5.6.002, and wanted to install it; the ccc debian
package wants some older version, though... I tried to trick it by
renaming the file, but somehow that didn't work.
Well, I tried to install the rpm:s directly, but that was apparently not
the best thing to do...
Does anybody have an idea how I best install ccc here?
D'oh, another outdated installer .deb...  Sorry about that.
Not that this helps you now, but I will get to it when I have time, 
likely in about 2-3 weeks.

[Note: PLEASE remove the BTS submit address if you reply.]
Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Re: ccc

2003-03-18 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Package: ccc
Joakim Roubert wrote:
Hi!
What exactly do the ccc-debian wrappers do?
I downloaded ccc-6.5.6.002, and wanted to install it; the ccc debian
package wants some older version, though... I tried to trick it by
renaming the file, but somehow that didn't work.
Well, I tried to install the rpm:s directly, but that was apparently not
the best thing to do...
Does anybody have an idea how I best install ccc here?
D'oh, another outdated installer .deb...  Sorry about that.
Hmm, just went to the download site, and the version of C available is 
6.5.9.001-6, which is what the (unstable/sarge) .deb has supported since 
last October...  Seems you have an out-of-date .rpm.

I'm not certain the sarge .deb works on woody though.  Would you be 
interested in testing it?

Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Re: ccc

2003-03-22 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Joakim Roubert wrote:
Hi!
Today I gave the install of ccc another shot; I've failed so far.
(I suck.)
The latest rpm I found at Compaq was the ccc-6.5.6.002-1.alpha.rpm.
Running apt-get ccc for stable and unstable gives med the
ccc_6.5.9.001-1_alpha.deb, which prompts for ccc-6.5.9.001-1.alpha.rpm
I tried to rename the RPM in order to cheat the system, thinking it
wouldn't work. It didn't.
Before I try to make a manual workaround, is there a place to get a
ccc-6.5.9.001-1.alpha.rpm?
The package description gives: http://www.support.compaq.com/alpha-tools/
Hmm, clicking on "Compaq C" leads one down a trail which talks about 
version 6.2...

OTOH, clicking on the "Enthusiast & Education Program" (on the left-side 
bar) gives me a registration page, and then a downloads page with a link 
to "ccc-6.5.9.001-6.alpha.rpm.crypt".

Last time I tried to pump ccc in my system I made .deb-packages with alien
-c as said might work on this list, but when installed, ccc complained
about not finding correct libraries and stuff.
Does anybody have some tricks or advice here?
Hmm.  This is the stuff that the .deb does, but there are a lot of 
symlinks, script runs, etc. involved.  I guess the best advice I can 
give is just to follow the procedure in the postinst: use rpm2cpio to 
unpack, copy in as postinst does, and run the scripts that postinst 
does.  I think it should work...

Oh wait, just go to http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/compaq/ and the 
6.5.6.002-1.deb binary is there.  (That should be in the 
README.Debian... but there is none!  Sorry about that.  I should stick a 
note in the templates file.)

So if you can't get 6.5.9, that should solve your problem with 6.5.6.
One warning though: since gcc became gcc-3.2, I haven't been able to 
build a working cxx.  It must be trying to call gcc, which is 3.2, but 
cxx's name mangling is incompatible with 3.2 so there are always missing 
symbols (like cout).  I've tried to do several things, like forcing it 
to use gcc-2.95, but it still calls "gcc" which is 3.2, and doesn't want 
to be convinced to do otherwise.  So cxx on unstable right now is dead, 
for all practical purposes, until someone at Compaq -er- HP decides to 
make it work on 3.2 -- or make the gcc call configurable.  (I suppose 
you could work-around using a diversion to make gcc be 2.95 again, but 
that would be ugly.)  I can't see how this might give you any trouble 
with ccc, but it might...

Ah, the joys of closed-source software!
Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Re: ccc

2003-03-22 Thread Falk Hueffner

Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> One warning though: since gcc became gcc-3.2, I haven't been able to
> build a working cxx.  It must be trying to call gcc, which is 3.2,
> but cxx's name mangling is incompatible with 3.2 so there are always
> missing symbols (like cout). 

Hmm, works for me[tm] on sid with cxx cxx-6.5.9.31. My comp.config
looks like this:

 -Wl,--demangle=compaq -tk -h/usr/bin -B -tl -h/usr/bin -B -ts 
-h/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin -B_rh70 -D__DECCXX_LIBCXX_RH70 
-D__linux_dist_debian -SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx 
-SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include -SD/usr/local/include 
-SD/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.2/include -SD/usr/include  | -SysIncCxxDir 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx -SysIncDir 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include   -SysIncDir 
/usr/local/include -SysIncDir /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.2/include 
-SysIncDir /usr/include -L/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/lib   
-L/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.2 -std strict_ansi

(Hmm, 3.2.2 should really be 3.2.3. Still works :)

-- 
Falk

Re: ccc

2003-03-22 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Falk Hueffner wrote:
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
 

One warning though: since gcc became gcc-3.2, I haven't been able to
build a working cxx.  It must be trying to call gcc, which is 3.2,
but cxx's name mangling is incompatible with 3.2 so there are always
missing symbols (like cout). 
   

Hmm, works for me[tm] on sid with cxx cxx-6.5.9.31. My comp.config
looks like this:
-Wl,--demangle=compaq -tk -h/usr/bin -B -tl -h/usr/bin -B -ts 
-h/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin -B_rh70 -D__DECCXX_LIBCXX_RH70 
-D__linux_dist_debian -SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx 
-SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include -SD/usr/local/include 
-SD/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.2/include -SD/usr/include  | -SysIncCxxDir 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx -SysIncDir 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include   -SysIncDir 
/usr/local/include -SysIncDir /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.2/include 
-SysIncDir /usr/include -L/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/lib   
-L/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.2 -std strict_ansi
(Hmm, 3.2.2 should really be 3.2.3. Still works :)
 

Aha, I had an identical file minus the -std strict_ansi.  But with 
those, it gives me compiler errors:

zither:/# cxx /tmp/bye.C -o /tmp/bye
cxx: Error: /tmp/bye.C, line 4: identifier "cout" is undefined
 cout << "Hello world" << endl;
--^
cxx: Error: /tmp/bye.C, line 4: identifier "endl" is undefined
 cout << "Hello world" << endl;
---^
cxx: Info: 2 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/bye.C".
zither:/# more /tmp/bye.C
#include 
int main()
{
 cout << "Hello world" << endl;
 return 0;   
}

Funny, because at the top of cxx's iostream.hxx it says something about 
can't define -D__STD_STRICT_ANSI and use iostream, but that error 
doesn't show up.  Without -std strict_ansi, it gave:

# cxx -v /tmp/bye.C -o /tmp/bye
comp.config contains:  -Wl,--demangle=compaq -tk -h/usr/bin -B -tl 
-h/usr/bin -B -ts -h/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin -B_rh70 
-D__DECCXX_LIBCXX_RH70 -D__linux_dist_debian 
-SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx 
-SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include 
-SD/usr/local/include -SD/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.3/include 
-SD/usr/include  | -SysIncCxxDir 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx -SysIncDir 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include   -SysIncDir 
/usr/local/include -SysIncDir /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.3/include 
-SysIncDir /usr/include -L/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/lib   
-L/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.3

/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/lnxexx -D__LANGUAGE_C__ 
-D__unix__ -D__alpha -D_SYSTYPE_BSD -D_LONGLONG -D__arch64__ 
-D__LANGUAGE_C -D__ELF__ -D__alpha__ -D__linux -D__linux__ -D__unix 
-D__signed__=signed -D__const__=const -D__volatile__=volatile -g0 -O2 
-preempt_module -model ansi -D__DECCXX_LIBCXX_RH70 -D__linux_dist_debian 
-SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx 
-SD/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include 
-SD/usr/local/include -SD/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.3/include 
-SD/usr/include -v 
-I/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx 
-I/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx_cname 
-I/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include/cxx 
-I/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/include -I/usr/local/include 
-I/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.3/include -I/usr/include -o bye.o 
/tmp/bye.C

These macros are in effect at the start of the compilation.
- -- --- -- -- -- --- - -- --- 
-D__linux_dist_debian -D__DECCXX_LIBCXX_RH70 -D__volatile__=volatile
-D__const__=const -D__signed__=signed -D__linux -D__ELF__ -D__LANGUAGE_C
-D__LANGUAGE_C__ -Dunix -D__linux__ -D_SYSTYPE_BSD -D__unix__ -D__unix
-D__INITIAL_POINTER_SIZE=0 -D__arch64__ -D__IEEE_FLOAT -D__Alpha_AXP
-D_LONGLONG -D__alpha__ -D__alpha -D__ALPHA -D__DECCXX_VER=60590031
-D__MODEL_ANSI -D__STD_ANSI -D__STDC__ -D__IMPLICIT_INCLUDE_ENABLED 
-D__STDNEW
-D__X_FLOAT=0 -D__PRAGMA_ENVIRONMENT -D__DECCXX -D__EDG_VERSION__=245
-D__EDG__ -D__IMPLICIT_USING_STD -D__RTTI -D__EXCEPTIONS 
-D__GLOBAL_ARRAY_NEW
-D__BOOL_IS_A_RESERVED_WORD -D_BOOL_EXISTS -D__WCHAR_T -D_WCHAR_T
-D__cplusplus=199711L -D__TIME__="02:08:29" -D__DATE__="Mar 23 2003"

/usr/bin/ld -o /tmp/bye --demangle=compaq 
-L/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/lib 
-L/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/3.2.3 -O1 -m elf64alpha -G 8 -rpath 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/ 
-L/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/ -dynamic-linker 
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/crt1.o 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/crti.o 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/crtbegin.o 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/_mainma.o bye.o 
-lcxxstdma_rh70 -lcxxma_rh70 -lc -lots 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/crtend.o 
/usr/lib/compaq/cxx-6.5.9.31/alpha-linux/bin/crtn.o --no-d

Re: ccc

2003-03-23 Thread Falk Hueffner

Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Aha, I had an identical file minus the -std strict_ansi.  But with
> those, it gives me compiler errors:
> 
> zither:/# cxx /tmp/bye.C -o /tmp/bye
> cxx: Error: /tmp/bye.C, line 4: identifier "cout" is undefined
>   cout << "Hello world" << endl;
> --^
> cxx: Error: /tmp/bye.C, line 4: identifier "endl" is undefined
>   cout << "Hello world" << endl;
> ---^
> cxx: Info: 2 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/bye.C".
> zither:/# more /tmp/bye.C
> #include 
> int main()
> {
>   cout << "Hello world" << endl;
>   return 0; }

Well, that's a correct message, g++ will tell you the same :)

You need std::cout and std::endl. And I think you really need -std
strict_ansi in comp.config to get it to work.

-- 
Falk

Re: ccc

2003-03-23 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Falk Hueffner wrote:
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
 

Aha, I had an identical file minus the -std strict_ansi.  But with
those, it gives me compiler errors:
zither:/# cxx /tmp/bye.C -o /tmp/bye
cxx: Error: /tmp/bye.C, line 4: identifier "cout" is undefined
 cout << "Hello world" << endl;
--^
cxx: Error: /tmp/bye.C, line 4: identifier "endl" is undefined
 cout << "Hello world" << endl;
---^
cxx: Info: 2 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/bye.C".
zither:/# more /tmp/bye.C
#include 
int main()
{
 cout << "Hello world" << endl;
 return 0; }
   

Well, that's a correct message, g++ will tell you the same :)
Really??  Again, I'm not really a C++ person, but have seen this syntax 
without std:: lots of times, and it's in the create-comp-config.sh 
script provided by cxx.  Oh well, must not have been ANSI-compliant 
code; I'm happy to have the .deb patch create-comp-config.sh before 
running it.

You need std::cout and std::endl. And I think you really need -std
strict_ansi in comp.config to get it to work.
 

Hmm, just compiled with std::cout and std::endl, and got even more 
undefined symbols...

zither:/# cxx /tmp/bye.C -o /tmp/bye
bye.o(.text+0x18): undefined reference to 
`__7put__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFZ1Z_RQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z'
bye.o(.text+0x20): undefined reference to 
`__7put__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFZ1Z_RQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z'
bye.o(.text+0x20): undefined reference to 
`__7put__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFZ1Z_RQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z'
bye.o(.text+0x30): undefined reference to 
`__7flush__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFv_RQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z'
bye.o(.text+0x34): undefined reference to 
`__7flush__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFv_RQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z'
bye.o(.text+0x34): undefined reference to 
`__7flush__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFv_RQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z'
bye.o(.text+0x70): In function `main':
: undefined reference to 
`__7__CPR123ls__tm__30_Q2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_c__3stdFRQ2_3std25basic_ostream__tm__5_cZ1ZPCc_RQ2_3stdJ57J'
bye.o(.text+0x80): In function `main':
: undefined reference to 
`__7__CPR123ls__tm__30_Q2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_c__3stdFRQ2_3std25basic_ostream__tm__5_cZ1ZPCc_RQ2_3stdJ57J'
bye.o(.text+0x80): In function `main':
: undefined reference to 
`__7__CPR123ls__tm__30_Q2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_c__3stdFRQ2_3std25basic_ostream__tm__5_cZ1ZPCc_RQ2_3stdJ57J'
bye.o(.text+0x74): In function `main':
: undefined reference to `__7cout__3std'
bye.o(.text+0x90): In function `main':
: undefined reference to 
`__7__CPR183ls__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFPFRQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z_RQ2_3stdJ78J_RQ2_3stdJ78J'
bye.o(.text+0x98): In function `main':
: undefined reference to 
`__7__CPR183ls__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFPFRQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z_RQ2_3stdJ78J_RQ2_3stdJ78J'
bye.o(.text+0x98): In function `main':
: undefined reference to 
`__7__CPR183ls__Q2_3std52basic_ostream__tm__31_cQ2_3std20char_traits__tm__2_cFPFRQ2_3std27basic_ostream__tm__7_Z1ZZ2Z_RQ2_3stdJ78J_RQ2_3stdJ78J'

Can you tell me the steps you went through to get this installed?  I 
know you didn't (merely) use the .deb, because that would have put paths 
to 2.95.4 in your comp.config.

Thanks for your help!
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

Re: ccc

2003-03-23 Thread Falk Hueffner

Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hmm, just compiled with std::cout and std::endl, and got even more
> undefined symbols...
>
> Can you tell me the steps you went through to get this installed?  I
> know you didn't (merely) use the .deb, because that would have put
> paths to 2.95.4 in your comp.config.

Hm, I don't really remember, I guess I used alien and then kicked it
till it worked :) Maybe your binutils is too old? I have
2.13.90.0.18-1.2.

-- 
Falk

Re: ccc

2003-03-23 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Falk Hueffner wrote:
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
 

Hmm, just compiled with std::cout and std::endl, and got even more
undefined symbols...
Can you tell me the steps you went through to get this installed?  I
know you didn't (merely) use the .deb, because that would have put
paths to 2.95.4 in your comp.config.
   

Hm, I don't really remember, I guess I used alien and then kicked it
till it worked :) Maybe your binutils is too old? I have
2.13.90.0.18-1.2.
Nope, same binutils.  I'm afraid my interest in C++ is not sufficient to 
keep kicking just now.  So the three bugs against the cxx .deb will 
likely remain open for at least a couple of months unless someone else 
looks into it (but I'll be sure to get this done before sarge freezes). :-(

Thanks for the info, it's encouraging to know it works for someone!
Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

Re: ccc

2003-03-24 Thread Joakim Roubert

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> OTOH, clicking on the "Enthusiast & Education Program" (on the left-side
> bar) gives me a registration page, and then a downloads page with a link
> to "ccc-6.5.9.001-6.alpha.rpm.crypt".

Aha!
ftp.compaq.com:/pub/products/linuxdevtools/latest/crypt
Didn't expect it to be found there.
Thanks!!

/Joakim
-- 
 http://www.efd.lth.se/~d97jro/

ccc install

2003-05-07 Thread Richard Fillion

I installed ccc on my box to see if i could get better performance out
of some apps with it instead of gcc.  I followed these instructions :

http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/241/2001/3/0/5451555/

And ccc now runs, but i cant compile anything. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ cat helloworld.c 
   #include 
   main(){
printf("Hello World\n");
   }
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ ccc helloworld.c -o helloworld
cc: Severe: /usr/include/stdio.h, line 34: Cannot find file 
specified in #include directive. (noinclfilef)
# include 
--^

Are the gcc include files not compatible with ccc ones?  Also...is this
even worth my time?  Should i just flag the hell out of gcc to get
performance?  Do usual apps even compile with ccc?

Richard Fillion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

CCC Install

2003-06-17 Thread Kris Amy

Hi,

Just trying to install CCC today and dpkg reports this error.

Setting up ccc (6.5.9.001-1) ...

Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char 
**argv) {return 0;}".
       The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
Aborting

If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
by entering a command in the following format:

create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]

The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:

/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
dpkg: error processing ccc (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
 ccc
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)


Any ideas?

Kris


pgp8KoIbSHrzX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ccc .debs?

2000-11-15 Thread T. Weyergraf



> Greetings,
Hi,

> I'm trying to test alternative compilation of a package I maintain using
> ccc/fort, but can only find ccc rpms.  Are there debs, or can I safely
> alien and install the rpms?

No. You can't alien them safely. There has been a discussion in length about
this a few weeks ago here. I recommend, checking the archives.

> The rpms seem to depend on newer cpml than is available in .deb, and
> come with newer ladebug.  Can I alien and install them too safely- and
> without breaking fort?

It's easy to install the rpms by hand and fix things for debian. works good for 
me.

> Thanks,

regards,
T. Weyergraf


-- 
Thomas Weyergraf[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
My Favorite IA64 Opcode-guess ( see arch/ia64/lib/memset.S )
"br.ret.spnt.few" - got back from getting beer, did not spend a lot.

Re: ccc .debs?

2000-11-15 Thread Christopher C. Chimelis

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, T. Weyergraf wrote:

> No. You can't alien them safely. There has been a discussion in length about
> this a few weeks ago here. I recommend, checking the archives.

I'm sorry about this...we took the discussion off-list for a bit and got
into the script problems that the RPMs have.  For future reference, the
archives should be checked to get ccc to work safely for anyone
considering using just alien.

> It's easy to install the rpms by hand and fix things for debian. works good 
> for me.

Adam and I agreed to consider making an installer package for ccc and
related.  I'm going to try to get ahold of the Compaq folks that I know to
see if they agree to us doing this (since they're REALLY picky in the
license about quite a bit of things).

C

Re: ccc .debs?

2000-11-15 Thread Adam C Powell IV

"T. Weyergraf" wrote:

> > Greetings,
> Hi,
>
> > I'm trying to test alternative compilation of a package I maintain using
> > ccc/fort, but can only find ccc rpms.  Are there debs, or can I safely
> > alien and install the rpms?
>
> No. You can't alien them safely. There has been a discussion in length about
> this a few weeks ago here. I recommend, checking the archives.

Sorry about that, I saw the "compiling" thread in a search of my debian alpha 
folder,
but didn't think it focused on ccc until looking again just now.

> > The rpms seem to depend on newer cpml than is available in .deb, and
> > come with newer ladebug.  Can I alien and install them too safely- and
> > without breaking fort?
>
> It's easy to install the rpms by hand and fix things for debian. works good 
> for me.

Thanks.  I haven't checked the new cpml with the old fort yet, but it sounds 
like it
should be no problem.  The new ccc doesn't work with the old cpml 
(-whole-archive
gives an internal error), but that's to be expected.

If I get some time in the next week or two, I'm going to attempt new "hollow" 
.debs of
ccc and friends to go in contrib.  They will require that the user first go 
through
Q's website to download the .rpms, then postinst prompts for the .rpm filename,
deconstructs it using rpm2cpio, puts everything in the right place, and fixes
everything in accordance with your instructions in the compiling thread.  
Something
like the realplayer package.

This way, when new versions come out, instead of trying to work with them to 
put .debs
in their website- and hoping it happens within a few months, we just update the 
hollow
.debs.

Makes sense?

Thanks again,

-Adam P.

 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

Re: ccc install

2003-05-08 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Richard Fillion wrote:
I installed ccc on my box to see if i could get better performance out
of some apps with it instead of gcc.  I followed these instructions :
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/241/2001/3/0/5451555/
This is ancient, you can now "apt-get install ccc" and follow the 
instructions so its script installs the ccc RPM "properly".

And ccc now runs, but i cant compile anything. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ cat helloworld.c 
  #include 
  main(){
   printf("Hello World\n");
  }
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ ccc helloworld.c -o helloworld
cc: Severe: /usr/include/stdio.h, line 34: Cannot find file 
specified in #include directive. (noinclfilef)
# include 
--^

I haven't seen this problem, but YMMV.
Note that I can't get cxx to work in unstable, but that shouldn't affect 
ccc.

Please let me know if uninstalling the aliened rpm and reinstalling via 
the .deb works.

Thanks,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Re: ccc install

2003-05-08 Thread Richard Fillion

It may be ancient, but it "works".  I tried "apt-get install ccc" and
followed the instructions, but... seeing how i could not get the exact
version number for ccc that it wanted, i dont think it installed
properly.  I renmaed the rpm to match what the script was looking for,
but then afterwards it was complaining about a lack of
/usr/doc/ccc-x.x.x .  So i figured i'd try out other ways.

Richard Fillion
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 12:59, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Richard Fillion wrote:
> 
> >I installed ccc on my box to see if i could get better performance out
> >of some apps with it instead of gcc.  I followed these instructions :
> >
> >http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/241/2001/3/0/5451555/
> >
> This is ancient, you can now "apt-get install ccc" and follow the 
> instructions so its script installs the ccc RPM "properly".
> 
> >And ccc now runs, but i cant compile anything. 
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ cat helloworld.c 
> >   #include 
> >   main(){
> >printf("Hello World\n");
> >   }
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ ccc helloworld.c -o helloworld
> >cc: Severe: /usr/include/stdio.h, line 34: Cannot find file 
> >specified in #include directive. (noinclfilef)
> ># include 
> >--^
> >
> I haven't seen this problem, but YMMV.
> 
> Note that I can't get cxx to work in unstable, but that shouldn't affect 
> ccc.
> 
> Please let me know if uninstalling the aliened rpm and reinstalling via 
> the .deb works.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> 
> -Adam P.
> 
> GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
> 
> Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
> <http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: ccc install

2003-05-08 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Well, "works" is relative, apparently from your description it doesn't 
quite work.

Which version of ccc did the .deb ask for, and which do you have?  And 
which version of the ccc deb were you trying to install?  The script 
does a couple of things to make this work which are somewhat 
non-trivial, and could have solve the problem you are seeing.

Richard Fillion wrote:
It may be ancient, but it "works".  I tried "apt-get install ccc" and
followed the instructions, but... seeing how i could not get the exact
version number for ccc that it wanted, i dont think it installed
properly.  I renmaed the rpm to match what the script was looking for,
but then afterwards it was complaining about a lack of
/usr/doc/ccc-x.x.x .  So i figured i'd try out other ways.
Richard Fillion
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 12:59, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
 

Richard Fillion wrote:
   

I installed ccc on my box to see if i could get better performance out
of some apps with it instead of gcc.  I followed these instructions :
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/241/2001/3/0/5451555/
 

This is ancient, you can now "apt-get install ccc" and follow the 
instructions so its script installs the ccc RPM "properly".
   

And ccc now runs, but i cant compile anything. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ cat helloworld.c 
 #include 
 main(){
      printf("Hello World\n");
 }
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ ccc helloworld.c -o helloworld
cc: Severe: /usr/include/stdio.h, line 34: Cannot find file 
specified in #include directive. (noinclfilef)
# include 
--^

 

I haven't seen this problem, but YMMV.
Note that I can't get cxx to work in unstable, but that shouldn't affect 
ccc.

Please let me know if uninstalling the aliened rpm and reinstalling via 
the .deb works.

--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Re: ccc install

2003-05-08 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Richard Fillion wrote:
Maintainer: Adam C. Powell, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Architecture: alpha
Version: 6.2.9.506-4

This package installs the file ccc-6.2.9.506-1.alpha.rpm from the above
website.
ccc-6.4.9.005-1.alpha.rpm<--- thats what i had to download from the
website.
As we say in New York, "Akhaa!"  The website and sid/sarge .deb should 
be 6.5.9.31, I think the sid/sarge .deb is installable in woody, since 
it only depends on gcc-2.95.

Holy crap, you're the maintainer, i guess my problem is in good hands
then. eheh.
Well, I like to think so, but the truth is that I'm just the guy who 
volunteered, there are many people on this list who know quite a bit 
more than I.

I think the problem is an incompatibility between those 2
rpms.  I'm doing all of this on Debian Woody, should i try sarge's "ccc"
or sid's?
Both (sid and sarge are both 6.5.9.31).
Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Re: ccc install

2003-05-09 Thread T. Weyergraf

Hi all,

>> Richard Fillion wrote:
> 
> >I installed ccc on my box to see if i could get better performance out
> >of some apps with it instead of gcc.  I followed these instructions :
> >
> >http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/241/2001/3/0/5451555/
> >
> This is ancient, you can now "apt-get install ccc" and follow the 
> instructions so its script installs the ccc RPM "properly".

Old ghosts always come back to haunt you ;-)
When i did the original posting about installing ccc, I was under
the impression, that the Debian-install method already was
on it's way.
I haven't tried the apt-get install for ccc, since i persistently install
my ccc by hand ( just to make sure it gets a grasp of my relativly
strange gcc/glibc/includes setup ).

If desired, I could do an "up-to-date" version of the orginal document,
just to have a fallback-method at hand. I do prefer the apt-get
method, since it's the Debian way. But unfortunately, my old document
pops up every few months or so. Since I did it, i feel somehow 
responsible for keeping it up to date.

Comments ?

Regards,
Thomas Weyergraf ( still on alpha as a happy user ;-)

-- 
Thomas Weyergraf[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
My Favorite IA64 Opcode-guess ( see arch/ia64/lib/memset.S )
"br.ret.spnt.few" - got back from getting beer, did not spend a lot.

Re: ccc install

2003-05-09 Thread Ionut Georgescu

Hi,

sincerely, I have found installing ccc with alien and dpkg easier than
using apt-get. After spending hours hunting for the right versions, I
ended up downloading the latest versions from the HP web site and trying
my luck with alien -c. The only package that made some trouble was ccc,
as it was trying to do some cleanup work after previous installs. I had
none, as it was a fresh woody and it failed.

You can find the summary of my ccc 'experience' at 

http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/unix/ccc.html

Good luck!
Ionut


On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 01:59:19PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Richard Fillion wrote:
> 
> >I installed ccc on my box to see if i could get better performance out
> >of some apps with it instead of gcc.  I followed these instructions :
> >
> >http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/241/2001/3/0/5451555/
> >
> This is ancient, you can now "apt-get install ccc" and follow the 
> instructions so its script installs the ccc RPM "properly".
> 
> >And ccc now runs, but i cant compile anything. 
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ cat helloworld.c 
> >  #include 
> >  main(){
> >   printf("Hello World\n");
> >  }
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/C$ ccc helloworld.c -o helloworld
> >cc: Severe: /usr/include/stdio.h, line 34: Cannot find file 
> >specified in #include directive. (noinclfilef)
> ># include 
> >--^
> >
> I haven't seen this problem, but YMMV.
> 
> Note that I can't get cxx to work in unstable, but that shouldn't affect 
> ccc.
> 
> Please let me know if uninstalling the aliened rpm and reinstalling via 
> the .deb works.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> 
> -Adam P.
> 
> GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
> 
> Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
> <http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
***
* Ionut Georgescu
* http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/
* Registered Linux User #244479
*
* "In Windows you can do everything Microsoft wants you to do; in Unix you
*can do anything the computer is able to do."

Re: ccc install

2003-05-13 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Hello,
They usually get back to me within a day or two, I'd be surprised if you 
didn't already have the key by now...

Richard Fillion wrote:
OK Now i see what i was doing wrong on their website.  I now have the
deb, but no password.  I applyed for the educational license, and am
waiting for that.  How long does that usually take?  And btw...i dont
mind at all if  you cc to the mailing list.  I'm sure i'm not the only
person out there who has this problem.
Richard Fillion
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2003-05-09 at 11:28, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
 

The ccc .deb description says:
Compaq does not allow redistribution of their software. Therefore, this
package requires the user to fetch the ccc RPM archive separately
from their web site at http://www.support.compaq.com/alpha-tools/ .  When you
install this package you will be guided through that process.
When I go through that page, then click through "Enhtusiast and 
Education" license and fill in the fields, it sends me to 
ftp://ftp.compaq.com/pub/products/linuxdevtools/latest/downloads.html 
which has (encrypted) 6.5.9.001-6 (not 6.5.9.31 like I said earlier, 
that was the cxx version).

I hope that works for you, please let me know.
[BTW, do you mind that I replied back to the list last time?]
Richard Fillion wrote:
   

ftp://ftp.compaq.com/pub/products/C-Cxx/linux/compaq_c_v62/docs/ccc/download_files_.htm
That provides 
ccc-6.5.6.002-1.alpha.rpm

unstable ccc wants:
ccc-6.5.9.001-6.alpha.rpm
Will it make a difference?
Richard Fillion
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 22:53, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
 

Richard Fillion wrote:
   

Maintainer: Adam C. Powell, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Architecture: alpha
Version: 6.2.9.506-4

This package installs the file ccc-6.2.9.506-1.alpha.rpm from the above
website.
ccc-6.4.9.005-1.alpha.rpm<--- thats what i had to download from the
website.
 

As we say in New York, "Akhaa!"  The website and sid/sarge .deb should 
be 6.5.9.31, I think the sid/sarge .deb is installable in woody, since 
it only depends on gcc-2.95.
   

Holy crap, you're the maintainer, i guess my problem is in good hands
then. eheh.
 

Well, I like to think so, but the truth is that I'm just the guy who 
volunteered, there are many people on this list who know quite a bit 
more than I.
   

I think the problem is an incompatibility between those 2
rpms.  I'm doing all of this on Debian Woody, should i try sarge's "ccc"
or sid's?
 

Both (sid and sarge are both 6.5.9.31).
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

ccc install bombs

2003-05-27 Thread Timothy Timmons

Earlier I was running the install for ccc until I find out HP encrypts the CCC 
rpm the
installer expects with gnupg. When I was trying to do an apt-get install ccc, 
saturday
I had to abort it when it got the ccc setup and expected the decrypted ccc rpm. 

However, their form mail cgi for submitting a request for a key was broken on 
saturday,
I emailed their webmaster and amazingly it got fixed yesterday. So, I got a key 
and
decrypted the rpm package for ccc, then tried to run an apt-get install ccc 
again.
Said it was already installed, so I did an apt-get remove ccc and then a dpkg 
--purge
ccc, and did another apt-get install ccc... but now it bombs like this when it 
gets
to the ccc configure script...


Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char 
**argv) {return 0;}".
       The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
Aborting

If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
by entering a command in the following format:

create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]

The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:

/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
dpkg: error processing ccc (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
 ccc
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)



Both gcc-3.3 and gcc-2.95 seem to work and compile things fine.. however it 
seems the default
output is set to a.out and not ELF (maybe that's normal for linux/alpha but I 
don't know).

Re: CCC Install

2003-06-17 Thread Ionut Georgescu

Hi,

where does gcc point to ? is it gcc 3.3, 3.3 or 2.95 ? Please search for this
problem in the archives. It's been discussed before. I think it's because -V is
no longer supported in gcc 3.3

Ionut

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:15:10PM +1000, Kris Amy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just trying to install CCC today and dpkg reports this error.
> 
> Setting up ccc (6.5.9.001-1) ...
> 
> Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char 
> **argv) {return 0;}".
>The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
> gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> Aborting
> 
> If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
> by entering a command in the following format:
> 
> create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]
> 
> The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:
> 
> /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> dpkg: error processing ccc (--configure):
>  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>  ccc
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> 
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Kris



-- 
***
* Ionut Georgescu
* http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/
* Registered Linux User #244479
*
* "In Windows you can do everything Microsoft wants you to do; in Unix you
*can do anything the computer is able to do."

Re: CCC Install

2003-06-18 Thread Timothy Timmons

Yeah, I had the same problem. There were posts I made regarding it
last month. Check out the archives for the list, last month.

Simply change the symlink for gcc to point to gcc-2.95 temporarily,
then once you install ccc, change the link back to gcc-3.2 or 3.3
if you are running testing/unstable.

Tim


On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 05:59:00PM +0200, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> where does gcc point to ? is it gcc 3.3, 3.3 or 2.95 ? Please search for this
> problem in the archives. It's been discussed before. I think it's because -V 
> is
> no longer supported in gcc 3.3
> 
> Ionut
> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:15:10PM +1000, Kris Amy wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Just trying to install CCC today and dpkg reports this error.
> > 
> > Setting up ccc (6.5.9.001-1) ...
> > 
> > Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char 
> > **argv) {return 0;}".
> >The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
> > gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> > Aborting
> > 
> > If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
> > by entering a command in the following format:
> > 
> > create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]
> > 
> > The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:
> > 
> > /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> > ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> > dpkg: error processing ccc (--configure):
> >  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >  ccc
> > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> > 
> > 
> > Any ideas?
> > 
> > Kris

CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Phil Carmody

It's probably time for my yearly attempt to install the Compaq C compiler, and
I'me hitting trouble before I even start (however, I'm not phased, it's never
worked i the past, and I'm desensitized now).

I notice that I have the following files (downloaded from a previous attempt)

ccc-6.5.9.001-6.alpha.rpm.cryptcxx-6.5.9.28-1.alpha.rpm.crypt

However, looking at my email records, it appears that I no longer have the gpg
key for the crypt files (almost certainly lost in a move between e-mail
providers). Are the downloads keyed to a particular user, or did everyone get
the same key? 

If the latter, I don't suppose one could mysteriously appear in my inbox, could
it?

If the former, can anyone suggest a better search string than "compiler" on the
compaq (hp) alpha site. Getting _zero_ hits for "compiler" _really_ isn't
particularly impressive.

Phil

=
When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

ANNOUNCE: ccc installer package

2001-04-05 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Greetings,

I have made a ccc installer package like the ones for libots, cpml and
cxml.  I just uploaded it, so it's in incoming, and you can also get it
from http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/compaq/ .

The only hangup I can find is that the sml and rsml man pages go into
/usr/man in the RPM, but Debian's man does not look there or in
/usr/share/man so man sml or rsml turns up empty.  I can link them from
another section, if someone would suggest one.  There seem to be
references to /usr/man/sml.gz and /usr/man/rsml.gz in the ccc man page,
so "man ccc" gives an error because they're missing.  But making the
links from /usr/man gives a lintian error...

So I'm leaving it without those manpages for now.  Oh well.

Also, as I've mentioned before, it depends on gcc-2.95, so it won't
install on a potato system.  This is so I can specify the gcc directory
and dependency explicitly, and it won't break on gcc upgrade.  Oh well.

It installs without comp.config, then runs create-comp-config.sh to
generate it, and it seems to generate just fine, so we don't need to
patch comp.config.  It passes the "hello world" test, but I haven't
pushed it beyond that yet.

Try it, push it hard, share and enjoy, etc.

Coming next week: cfalrtl and cfal, then test with PETSc, then on to cxx
and ladebug...  Maybe someone else can do Q's Java stuff?  (BTW, can
mozilla use Q's JVM?  Is it high-performance?  If no, not much
motivation to build it.)

Zeen,

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

  Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

dec/Q ccc compiler

2001-09-23 Thread bad bob

Does anyone have this running on an alpha under debian? If so, are there
any noticable improvements over gcc?
Thanks
bob

gcc-3.3 vs Ccc?

2003-05-27 Thread Timothy Timmons

I've found some comparisons between gcc 3.2.2 and Ccc, but I haven't been
able to find any verses gcc-3.3.

I was going to compile bzip2 with gcc-2.95, gcc-3.3, and Ccc, then compare
the time for compressing/decompressing the same file as a test. Too bad I
have just realized I have no idea how to make it compile with Ccc. Just
changing CC=gcc to CC=ccc in the Makefile didn't work, and I didn't
expect it to work either really... hehehe.

Anyways, could anyone point me in the right direction for information on
compiling stuff that's normally used to gcc with ccc?

Thanks!

ccc vs. gcc today

2003-12-01 Thread John Goerzen

Hi,

I'm interested in how ccc and gcc compare today wrt speed of generated
code on Alpha.  Is gcc 3.3 as good as ccc?

Thanks,
John

-- 
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   www.complete.org

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Juraj Holtak

Hi Phil!

http://h30097.www3.hp.com/linux/compaq_c/
is what u want!

good hunt!

Cheers,
Juraj

PS: i compiled with the beta version of ccc so it`s safe i think

On Thursday 04 December 2003 17:12, Phil Carmody wrote:
> It's probably time for my yearly attempt to install the Compaq C compiler,
> and I'me hitting trouble before I even start (however, I'm not phased, it's
> never worked i the past, and I'm desensitized now).
>
> I notice that I have the following files (downloaded from a previous
> attempt)
>
> ccc-6.5.9.001-6.alpha.rpm.cryptcxx-6.5.9.28-1.alpha.rpm.crypt
>
> However, looking at my email records, it appears that I no longer have the
> gpg key for the crypt files (almost certainly lost in a move between e-mail
> providers). Are the downloads keyed to a particular user, or did everyone
> get the same key?
>
> If the latter, I don't suppose one could mysteriously appear in my inbox,
> could it?
>
> If the former, can anyone suggest a better search string than "compiler" on
> the compaq (hp) alpha site. Getting _zero_ hits for "compiler" _really_
> isn't particularly impressive.
>
> Phil
>
> =
> When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
> In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Phil Carmody

OK, I grabbed the latest rpms, and have a key.
I noticed that the cxx rpm's version number is higher than the one in the .deb,
so decied to not try installing cxx, and just restrict myself to ccc.

However, when it comes to me and ccc, it was the same old same old:
<<<
Setting up ccc (6.5.9.001-1) ...
Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char
**argv) {return 0;}".
   The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
Aborting

If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
by entering a command in the following format:

create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]

The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:

/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
dpkg: error processing ccc (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
>>>

Now, sure, 
<<<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc -V 2.95.4
gcc: couldn't run `alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4': No such file or directory
>>> 
seems to fail, but why can _I_ quite happily run 2.95.4 if there's a problem
with it?
<<<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc-2.95 -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs
gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc-2.95 -E -
# 1 ""
>>>

I even had a peek to see what alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4 was likely to be, and
created what appeared to be the missing symbolic link:
<<<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:bin$ sudo ln -s gcc-2.95 alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4
>>>
However, I still got exactly the same error as above.

I'm very confused. Maybe I should just go into hibernation for 6 months and try
it again in spring, like I did last year. 

Phil

=
When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread John Goerzen


I noticed the same problem recently.  Go into the create-comp-config.sh
file and move the -v so it comes after the -V {GCC_PATH} thing.

Also, I hacked it to call gcc instead of gcc-2.95.  You may need to make
a few other minor adjustments to GCC_PATH.

-- John

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:01:01AM -0800, Phil Carmody wrote:
> OK, I grabbed the latest rpms, and have a key.
> I noticed that the cxx rpm's version number is higher than the one in the 
> .deb,
> so decied to not try installing cxx, and just restrict myself to ccc.
> 
> However, when it comes to me and ccc, it was the same old same old:
> <<<
> Setting up ccc (6.5.9.001-1) ...
> Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char
> **argv) {return 0;}".
>The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
> gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> Aborting
> 
> If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
> by entering a command in the following format:
> 
> create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]
> 
> The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:
> 
> /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
> ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> dpkg: error processing ccc (--configure):
>  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> >>>
> 
> Now, sure, 
> <<<
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc -V 2.95.4
> gcc: couldn't run `alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4': No such file or directory
> >>> 
> seems to fail, but why can _I_ quite happily run 2.95.4 if there's a problem
> with it?
> <<<
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc-2.95 -v
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs
> gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc-2.95 -E -
> # 1 ""
> >>>
> 
> I even had a peek to see what alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4 was likely to be, and
> created what appeared to be the missing symbolic link:
> <<<
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:bin$ sudo ln -s gcc-2.95 alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4
> >>>
> However, I still got exactly the same error as above.
> 
> I'm very confused. Maybe I should just go into hibernation for 6 months and 
> try
> it again in spring, like I did last year. 
> 
> Phil
> 
> =
> When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
> In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Phil Carmody

--- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed the same problem recently.  Go into the create-comp-config.sh
> file and move the -v so it comes after the -V {GCC_PATH} thing.

Yup, I tried that hack myself! It kinda-sorta seemed to work.

> Also, I hacked it to call gcc instead of gcc-2.95.  You may need to make
> a few other minor adjustments to GCC_PATH.

OK, I've not noticed anything that I can be sure is caused by that yet, but I
am unable to build what I was trying to build :-(

ccc is complaining that 
<<<
./compile speed.c
cc: Error: /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h, line 71: Invalid declarator.
(declarator)
  __pthread_cond_align_t __align;
-^
>>>

Which is being pulled in via .

Juraj - this is the speed.c that you compiled for me last week - did you meet
anything like this?

John - would the 'gcc' rather than 'gcc-2.95' hack fix this? Should I uninstall
the current installation and reinstall again?

Phil

=
When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Juraj Holtak

On Thursday 04 December 2003 19:54, Phil Carmody wrote:

> <<<
> ./compile speed.c
> cc: Error: /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h, line 71: Invalid declarator.
> (declarator)
>   __pthread_cond_align_t __align;
> -^
>

nope never seen that
:-//

> =
> When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
> In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Juraj Holtak

grab the rpms
shit on the debian way of installing

its time for:
rpm -ivh --no-deps ccc_blabla
rpm -ivh --no-deps cpml_blabla

it works under stable
dunno about testing
but hey! who wants to run testing software on alpha???...
:-)

cheers,
juraj

On Thursday 04 December 2003 19:44, John Goerzen wrote:
> I noticed the same problem recently.  Go into the create-comp-config.sh
> file and move the -v so it comes after the -V {GCC_PATH} thing.
>
> Also, I hacked it to call gcc instead of gcc-2.95.  You may need to make
> a few other minor adjustments to GCC_PATH.
>
> -- John
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:01:01AM -0800, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > OK, I grabbed the latest rpms, and have a key.
> > I noticed that the cxx rpm's version number is higher than the one in the
> > .deb, so decied to not try installing cxx, and just restrict myself to
> > ccc.
> >
> > However, when it comes to me and ccc, it was the same old same old:
> > <<<
> > Setting up ccc (6.5.9.001-1) ...
> > Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char
> > **argv) {return 0;}".
> >The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
> > gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> > Aborting
> >
> > If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
> > by entering a command in the following format:
> >
> > create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]
> >
> > The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:
> >
> > /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
> > ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> > dpkg: error processing ccc (--configure):
> >  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> >
> >
> > Now, sure,
> > <<<
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc -V 2.95.4
> > gcc: couldn't run `alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4': No such file or directory
> >
> > seems to fail, but why can _I_ quite happily run 2.95.4 if there's a
> > problem with it?
> > <<<
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc-2.95 -v
> > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs
> > gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:rpm$ gcc-2.95 -E -
> > # 1 ""
> >
> >
> > I even had a peek to see what alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4 was likely to be,
> > and created what appeared to be the missing symbolic link:
> > <<<
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:bin$ sudo ln -s gcc-2.95 alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4
> >
> > However, I still got exactly the same error as above.
> >
> > I'm very confused. Maybe I should just go into hibernation for 6 months
> > and try it again in spring, like I did last year.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > =
> > When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
> > In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
> > http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
> >
> > __
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> > http://companion.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread John Goerzen

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Phil Carmody wrote:
> John - would the 'gcc' rather than 'gcc-2.95' hack fix this? Should I 
> uninstall
> the current installation and reinstall again?

Unknown.  It worked for me.  I'm only about 3 days older at ccc than you
are :-)

-- John

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread John Goerzen

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:49:59PM +0100, Juraj Holtak wrote:
> its time for:
> rpm -ivh --no-deps ccc_blabla
> rpm -ivh --no-deps cpml_blabla

Well, you should at least use alien.

-- John

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Falk Hueffner

Phil Carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> --- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I noticed the same problem recently.  Go into the create-comp-config.sh
> > file and move the -v so it comes after the -V {GCC_PATH} thing.
> 
> Yup, I tried that hack myself! It kinda-sorta seemed to work.
>  
> > Also, I hacked it to call gcc instead of gcc-2.95.  You may need to make
> > a few other minor adjustments to GCC_PATH.
> 
> OK, I've not noticed anything that I can be sure is caused by that yet, but I
> am unable to build what I was trying to build :-(
> 
> ccc is complaining that 
> <<<
> ./compile speed.c
> cc: Error: /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h, line 71: Invalid declarator.
> (declarator)
>   __pthread_cond_align_t __align;
> -^
> >>>
> 
> Which is being pulled in via .

See bug #212233. As a workaround, rename __align to __align_ or
whatever.

-- 
Falk

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Phil Carmody

--- Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ccc is complaining that 
> > <<<
> > ./compile speed.c
> > cc: Error: /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h, line 71: Invalid declarator.
> > (declarator)
> >   __pthread_cond_align_t __align;
> > -^
> > >>>
> > 
> > Which is being pulled in via .
> 
> See bug #212233. As a workaround, rename __align to __align_ or
> whatever.

Thanks Falk.
<<<
Bug#212233: Member named "__align" causes conflict with Compaq C builtin
>>>

Conflict with Compaq C?

It's in direct conflict with the ANSI/ISO C standard!

7.1.3 of n869
<<< 
All identifiers that begin with an underscore and either an uppercase 
letter or another underscore are always reserved for any use.
>>>

It's not big, and it's not clever.

Phil

=
When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-04 Thread Ionut Georgescu

see

http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/unix/ccc.html

for my experience on using alien on the compaq .rpm's. It is tricky,
especially if you use gcc 3.x, but it works. And you get your .deb.

Regards,
Ionut


On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:04:55PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:49:59PM +0100, Juraj Holtak wrote:
> > its time for:
> > rpm -ivh --no-deps ccc_blabla
> > rpm -ivh --no-deps cpml_blabla
> 
> Well, you should at least use alien.
> 
> -- John
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
***
* Ionut Georgescu
* http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/
* Registered Linux User #244479
*
* "In Windows you can do everything Microsoft wants you to do; in Unix you
*can do anything the computer is able to do."

Re: CCC/CXX installation

2003-12-09 Thread Adam C Powell IV

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 14:27, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Phil Carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > --- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I noticed the same problem recently.  Go into the create-comp-config.sh
> > > file and move the -v so it comes after the -V {GCC_PATH} thing.
> > 
> > Yup, I tried that hack myself! It kinda-sorta seemed to work.
> >  
> > > Also, I hacked it to call gcc instead of gcc-2.95.  You may need to make
> > > a few other minor adjustments to GCC_PATH.
> > 
> > OK, I've not noticed anything that I can be sure is caused by that yet, but 
> > I
> > am unable to build what I was trying to build :-(

Are these things that the ccc .deb can change so that it works?  I can't
seem to get create-comp-config.sh to work, even trying these edits.

If you can get it to work, please file a bug against ccc, if possible
with a patch.

> > ccc is complaining that 
> > <<<
> > ./compile speed.c
> > cc: Error: /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h, line 71: Invalid declarator.
> > (declarator)
> >   __pthread_cond_align_t __align;
> > -----^
> > >>>
> > 
> > Which is being pulled in via .
> 
> See bug #212233. As a workaround, rename __align to __align_ or
> whatever.

Likewise, can the ccc .deb assist in this workaround?
-- 
-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg

Re: dec/Q ccc compiler

2001-09-24 Thread Adam C Powell IV

bad bob wrote:
Does anyone have this running on an alpha under debian? If so, are there
any noticable improvements over gcc?
Thanks
bob
For sid/woody, there's an "installer package" which requires you to get 
the latest ccc (and libots) from Compaq.  The debconf stuff gives the 
relevant URLs.

For potato, you have to get the source package and edit the gcc symlinks 
to use 2.95.2 instead of 2.95.4.

There is no cfal(rtl) yet, because libfor.so was built with an old 
glibc, so it tries to reference fstat() which has moved out of glibc. 
And it persists if you try to use the 3.0 gcc/g77.  That's all I know, 
see http://bugs.debian.org/103750 for details.

Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Re: dec/Q ccc compiler

2001-09-25 Thread Juha Jäykkä

> Does anyone have this running on an alpha under debian? If so, are there
> any noticable improvements over gcc?

  Up to -O2 I cannot see any difference in my codes - except that ccc
makes slightly smaller binaries. In fact, when testing one particular
code, gcc's binary ran faster, but that code was heavy on disk I/O so
cannot really say it was the compiler and not the scsi controller's
cache, kernel cache...
  I have, though, tested compaq's fortran compiler - and it does not
seem to work at all. I get a nice binary but it just exits with return
code 24 when ran! My code does NOT do that. In fact, my code never
even gets ran, it dies before the first line of my code! I have not
looked into that yet - the code has a hideously large data segment,
quite possibly more than my kernel can give it... (just checked that -
it does not have).
  Just my 2 cents...

-- 
 ---
| Juha Jäykkä, [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/  |
 ---

Re: dec/Q ccc compiler

2001-09-25 Thread Phil Mendelsohn

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Juha Jäykkä wrote:

>   I have, though, tested compaq's fortran compiler - and it does not
> seem to work at all. 

Check comp.lang.fortran for details, but I understand that it does work
well, provided you've installed properly which is non-trivial.

-- 
I liked HP before computers, and at one time I liked Compaq,
but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.

Re: dec/Q ccc compiler

2001-09-25 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Phil Mendelsohn wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Juha Jäykkä wrote:
 I have, though, tested compaq's fortran compiler - and it does not
seem to work at all. 

Check comp.lang.fortran for details, but I understand that it does work
well, provided you've installed properly which is non-trivial.
What was the subject for the relevant thread?  I've searched 
comp.lang.fortran (4300 messages) for compaq, dec, digital, alpha, fort 
and cfal, found nothing...

Or can you summarize the procedure, so I can make the Debian installer 
do the right thing?

How do you get it to find fstat()?
Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

Re: dec/Q ccc compiler

2001-09-25 Thread Phil Mendelsohn

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> Phil Mendelsohn wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Juha Jäykkä wrote:
> >
> >>  I have, though, tested compaq's fortran compiler - and it does not
> >>seem to work at all. 
> >>
> >Check comp.lang.fortran for details, but I understand that it does work
> >well, provided you've installed properly which is non-trivial.
> >
> What was the subject for the relevant thread?  I've searched 
> comp.lang.fortran (4300 messages) for compaq, dec, digital, alpha, fort 
> and cfal, found nothing...


My mistake here -- I was thinking of the Intel compiler that was released
free for non-commercial use, available for Linux.

The thread was "Intel's free fortran compiler" (or close) and my confusion
came from the fact that Steve Lionel, leader of Compaq's Fortran
compiler team transferred to Intel and also posted to the thread.  Sorry
-- I forgot that Linux and Compaq Fortran might have had anything to do
with that other "architecture."

Hope it didn't cost you much time.

-- 
I liked HP before computers, and at one time I liked Compaq,
but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.

Re: dec/Q ccc compiler

2001-09-28 Thread Helge Kreutzmann

Hello !
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 07:30:00AM -0500, Phil Mendelsohn wrote:
> >   I have, though, tested compaq's fortran compiler - and it does not
> > seem to work at all. 
> 
> Check comp.lang.fortran for details, but I understand that it does work
> well, provided you've installed properly which is non-trivial.

I do use cfal from compaq on my machine regularly and it runs fine
(except that my programms are a tad slow on my 20164 at home compared
to the 20264 at work). I originally used an deb specifically for
fortran (for potato I belive). I am not at home right now 
but I can give you the
relevant debian archives. I later installed the other Q compilers but
did not test them heavily. 

I can post a list of installed Q-debs if wanted.

  Helge
-- 
Helge Kreutzmann, Dipl.-Phys.   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For gpg-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
64bit GNU powered  http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm
   Help keep free software "libre": http://www.freepatents.org/

pgpE8eeM6mFoV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

SUCCESS: X compiled with CCC

2002-03-16 Thread Peter Petrakis

http://www.alphadriven.org/X/

Is where you can pick up whats attached and the build log, which is huge.
With the help of George France and Jim Gettys I've gotten Xfree86 to compile
with ccc from the 4.2.0 sources.

Basicly I had to set up a cross compile setup that used ccc. Now it seems
that the cross compiling setup in X is not quite complete. There are times
during the build where the compilers switch from ccc to cc, only a handfull
though. I had to hack around the cf/*def files abit. the problem is even
though you've defined a CrossCompile the definitions needed to compile your
bootstrap tools are initialy declared but yet are not expanded when imake
generates the makefiles. Thats why host.def is more than just 2 lines (thats
all it 'should' be, the rest comes from cross.rules). I need to learn more
on how Imake works to fix it cleanly, why not autoconf?  There are some
errors in the build and no I have not installed it nor do i intend to. I
compiled this on a remote system (suse alpha at compaq) and I do not have
ccc installed on my deb box currently nor can I access ftp.compaq.com to get
them.

Attached are three files. the output of 'grep -i error world.log' ,
cross.def, and host.def. To compile X with ccc simply drop the to .def files
into config/cf directory and run make world. The complete build output is
available at alphadriven.org at the link I posted above. You will need to
tweak the cross.def
just alittle bit to suit your system. The changes are obvious.

So anyone interested in continuing this debug please do!!! I will find time
to work on this further though I intend to concentrate the bulk of my time
on evolving MILO
>:-).

I still have time to go out tonight...

LATER!

Peter
--
www.linuxalpha.org  www.alphadriven.org
Peter Petrakis Warrior/Engineer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" Who the hell are you!? Name's Ash  Housewares..."


errors.txt.bz2
Description: application/compressed


cross.def
Description: Binary data


host.def
Description: Binary data

xmms and ccc and stuff

2003-04-06 Thread Joakim Roubert

Hi!

Finally, I got ccc live and kicking.
Since the xmms 1.2.7 takes more than 70% of my CPU (strange; when I was
running RH with some 1.2.4 or something it was no more than 50%) I wanted
to recomplie it with ccc. Unfortunately, it bombed out:

cc: Error: /usr/include/linux/byteorder/swab.h, line 191: Invalid
statement. (badstmt)
return __arch__swab32p(x);
---^
cc: Severe: More than 30 errors were encountered in the course of
compilation. (toomanyerr)

Has anyone succeeded in compiling xmms with ccc? (Before I get down to
business trying to get things my way it could be good to know if it is
impossible... ;-)

/Joakim
-- 
 http://www.efd.lth.se/~d97jro/

Re: ccc vs. gcc today

2003-12-02 Thread Phil Carmody

--- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm interested in how ccc and gcc compare today wrt speed of generated
> code on Alpha.  Is gcc 3.3 as good as ccc?

For 21164s, building Dan Bernstein's DJBFFT library, ccc produces 
noticably faster code than gcc-3.3. At least 5% faster across the
board, up to 50% faster for some functions.

Phil

=
When inserting a CD, hold down shift to stop the AutoRun feature
In the Device Manager, disable the SbcpHid device.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: ccc vs. gcc today

2003-12-02 Thread John Goerzen

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:40:54AM -0800, Phil Carmody wrote:
> --- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm interested in how ccc and gcc compare today wrt speed of generated
> > code on Alpha.  Is gcc 3.3 as good as ccc?
> 
> For 21164s, building Dan Bernstein's DJBFFT library, ccc produces 
> noticably faster code than gcc-3.3. At least 5% faster across the
> board, up to 50% faster for some functions.

Does this hold even for things that are not directly math-related?

Here's why I ask.  I have done some experimentation and concluded that
my video card is not the source of my performance problems with X.
(Running programs over an ssh X tunnel from my laptop -- even over
11Mbps wireless networking -- is noticably faster than running the same
programs on my 164LX directly.)

Also, my Alpha's performance in X is a lot slower than a 700MHz PC I
have sitting around (that PC also supports only PCI cards), despite the
fact that just about everything about the Alpha is faster (10,000RPM UW
SCSI disks in RAID-0 vs. single 7500RPM IDE drive, etc, etc.)  I'm
hoping that optimizing programs for the Alpha will help.

I'm using apt-build right now to build some key libraries with
-mcpu=ev56 -O3 and hope that'll do the trick, but at the same time, I'm
wondering if ccc would do better -- and how easy it is to use it in
place of gcc.

-- John

Re: ccc vs. gcc today

2003-12-03 Thread Jay Estabrook

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:20:53AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:40:54AM -0800, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > --- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm interested in how ccc and gcc compare today wrt speed of generated
> > > code on Alpha.  Is gcc 3.3 as good as ccc?
> > 
> > For 21164s, building Dan Bernstein's DJBFFT library, ccc produces 
> > noticably faster code than gcc-3.3. At least 5% faster across the
> > board, up to 50% faster for some functions.
> 
> Does this hold even for things that are not directly math-related?

IIRC, it does NOT hold for normal/integer stuff, as GCC seems to hold
it's own in those areas.

> I'm using apt-build right now to build some key libraries with
> -mcpu=ev56 -O3 and hope that'll do the trick, but at the same time, I'm
> wondering if ccc would do better -- and how easy it is to use it in
> place of gcc.

Yes, rebuilding key libraries, as well as the kernel, for a specific
CPU/platform should help a good bit, if my results of a small GENTOO
install are any indication...

But, CCC is difficult, if not impossible, to use on some packages,
notably GLIBC and XFree86, as best I can remember.

Good luck.

 --Jay++

-
Jay A EstabrookHPTC - LINUX support
Hewlett-Packard Company - MRO1-2/K15   (508) 467-2080
200 Forest Street, Marlboro MA 01752   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

Re: ccc vs. gcc today

2003-12-03 Thread Juhana Paavola

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jay Estabrook wrote:

> Yes, rebuilding key libraries, as well as the kernel, for a specific
> CPU/platform should help a good bit, if my results of a small GENTOO
> install are any indication...
>
> But, CCC is difficult, if not impossible, to use on some packages,
> notably GLIBC and XFree86, as best I can remember.
>

I can say that Xfree86 isn't impossible to compile with ccc.
As I have done it, not newer only older versions.

X4.1.0 were last what I tried and succesfully compiled with ccc, speedup
were notable sometimes.
Of course there will be more notable speedup if windowmanager is compiled
too with ccc.
I didn't do that wm compiling so it might slow down.

Re: ccc vs. gcc today

2003-12-14 Thread Gregory P. Smith

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:20:53AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> I'm using apt-build right now to build some key libraries with
> -mcpu=ev56 -O3 and hope that'll do the trick, but at the same time, I'm
> wondering if ccc would do better -- and how easy it is to use it in
> place of gcc.

I suggest avoiding -O3.  Its optimizations can often hurt performance.
Even -O2 is often overkill.  In some simple tests on my 667mhz ev56
gcc-3.3 with '-mcpu=ev56 -Os' produced faster code than any of -O[123]
when building libjpeg and resulted in 20-30% smaller binaries.  (with such
a small cache, code footprint really matters)

Save the -O3 or -O2 for profiled hotspots in the code where you can prove
that they're better.  Overall they just add bloat which increases load
time, disk, ram and memory cache thrashing.

-g

ccc and cfal on alphas

2004-10-07 Thread Thadeu Penna


Are those compilers still in development? Where can I get the lastest
versions? If not, there is an free alternative to compile f90
source codes? Please, do not reply saying both fortran and compaq
compilers are both dead :(

-- 
 ___  _ .''`.
  | |_  _. _| _  |_) _ ._ ._  _.   : :'  :
  | | |(_|(_|(/_|_|  |  (/_| || |(_|   `. `'`
Linux User #50500`-
Prof.Adjunto - Instituto de Física  ---Debian-
Universidade Federal Fluminense Alpha/i386

cfal/ccc/cxx rpm.crypt key

2007-05-24 Thread Craig Prescott


Hi;

Slightly off topic, I know, but I thought maybe someone here could
help me.

I've lost the old email I had containing the key for the cfal, ccc,
and cxx rpm.crypt files.  I dorked around on HP's website some, but I
did not see an obvious contact - the links to the Enthusiast program
are dead, and reregistering for downloads resulted in returned emails
that could not connect to zko.dec.com.

If anyone could point me in the right direction, or if a key magically
appeared in my inbox, I'd be very grateful!

Thanks,
Craig


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Shlibs with fortran source in ccc

2002-03-11 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Hello,
I'm having some trouble with ccc/fort and shared libs.  My PETSc package 
has the option of being built using Compaq compilers and libs for 
increased performance.  It includes the shared lib libpetsc.so (among 
others) which is built from some C sources with ccc and some fortran 
sources with fort.

When I go to link a C-based binary to that lib, if I use -lfor -lFutil 
-lcpml, it can't find MAIN__, which is a symbol only generated by 
compiling a Fortran source with PROGRAM (AFAICT).  If I build with just 
-lcpml, it can't find for_write_seq_lis symbol, which is in libfor.

The really bizarre thing is that for PETSc 2.1.0 and the older fort (the 
-2 RPM, installed by cfal...-1.deb), it worked just fine with -lcpml. 
The old libpetsc.so contains the symbol for_write_seq_lis, but the 
linker is somehow finding it without -lfor.  But with 2.1.1 and the 
newer fort (the -3 RPM, installed by cfal...-2.deb which I just 
uploaded), it fails.  (Apologies to Naotaka Yamamoto for taking over a 
month to upload the new cfal installer and close 132951!)

The old and new shared libs were linked in exactly the same way, using:
${LD} -shared -soname $$LIBNAME.${SLSUFFIX}.${SLVERSION} -whole-archive 
$$LIBNAME.a -o $$LIBNAME.${SLSUFFIX}.${SLVERSION}

I also tried mkdir tmp; ar x ../$$LIBNAME.a; same LD command with *.o 
instead of $$LIBNAME.a, same error.

It's a real PITA that the old non-free cfal doesn't work any more 
because the "beta period expired", so I can't try building PETSc using 
that to verify that the compiler is making the difference.  I guess 
that's what I get for using non-free software. :-(

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

(re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-04 Thread Bob McElrath

I'm trying to recompile several packages with Compaq's C Compiler (ccc),
and would like input from the rest of you as to making this as smooth as
possible.  (For those that don't know, ccc generates vastly superior
code on the alpha, and should be the compiler of choice unless it is
known that it can't compile a given package)

I want to be able to:
apt-get source 
cd 
CC=ccc CFLAGS=-O3 dpkg-buildpackage
for any package in debian.

The main problem I've run into so far is that libtool does not recognize
ccc.  Specifically, it does not recognize that ccc can create shared
libraries.  For packages that use aclocal to generate an aclocal.m4
file, this can be fixed by patching /usr/share/aclocal/libtool.m4 (patch
attached against debian unstable libtool)  For packages that use
aclocal, aclocal *must* be run to re-generate this file or the changes
won't be seen.  For packages that include an ltconfig file it must be
patched by hand in the same way (look at the patch -- the change is the
same).

Could this be done in an automated way?

Does anyone else have any experience doing this?

Would there be any legal or technical trouble with putting ccc-compiled
packes in the debian repository?

Cheers,
Bob McElrath [Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics]

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the
freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman



pgpwAu35lyTDK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: xmms and ccc and stuff

2003-04-07 Thread Helge Kreutzmann

Hello,
did you compare compile options for RH and Debian? Also RH compilers
tend to have some performance patches not available in stoch gcc's, in
this case it might be worth trying gcc 3.x.

Greetings

Helge
-- 
Helge Kreutzmann, Dipl.-Phys.   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  gpg signed mail preferredgpg-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
64bit GNU powered  http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm
   Help keep free software "libre": http://www.freepatents.org/


pgpjgaEIZS3qk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: more on Ccc install problem

2003-05-27 Thread Ionut Georgescu

You're not paying attention !! When I wrote that gcc-path, I
intentionally left out the specs part !!!

Just try again.

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:16:36PM -0400, Timothy Timmons wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:29:56PM +0200, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
> > 
> > gcc-path is what gcc-2.95 -v tells you !! Example:
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> gcc-2.95 -v
> > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs
> > gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
> > 
> > so gcc-path is /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/
> > 
> 
> Oops. Hehe
> 
> However, the thing is still bombing on me :(
> 
> Here's what I did:
> 
> LX:~/gnupg-1.2.2# /usr/bin/gcc-2.95 -v
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs
> gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
> LX:~/gnupg-1.2.2# 
> /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs
> Error: Unable to find GCC at /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs. GCC 
> must be installed.
> Aborting
> 
> If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
> by entering a command in the following format:
> 
> create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]
> 
> The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:
> 
> /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs
> 
> 
> > I have also written down some notes from my personal experience with ccc:
> > 
> > http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/unix/ccc.html
> > 
> 
> Thanks, :)
> 
> If I don't get this working right either through dpkg --configure or the 
> create-comp-config.sh
> script soon I'm just going to make .debs like you explain how to on that 
> page. Then install them
> that way and see what happens. I think I'll make .debs anyways just for 
> archival purposes, and
> for using them to install on other alphas. 
> 
> -Tim
> 

-- 
***
* Ionut Georgescu
* http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/
* Registered Linux User #244479
*
* "In Windows you can do everything Microsoft wants you to do; in Unix you
*can do anything the computer is able to do."

Re: more on Ccc install problem

2003-05-27 Thread Timothy Timmons

Below is the full output, I however believe I see what the problem is..

These two lines:

+ env -i 
PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11 
gcc -v -V 2.95.4

and later gcc returns this:

gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line

Hehehe.

I'll try changing that in the script and see what happens.

Thanks



LX:~# sh -x 
/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4 |less
+ 
SAVE_PROG_NAME=/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
+ SAVE_ARGS=ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
+ CCC_VERSION=ccc-6.5.9.001-6
+ '[' ccc-6.5.9.001-6 = '' ']'
+ GCC_PATH=/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
++ dirname /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
+ . /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/probe_linux.sh init
-bash: less: command not found
++ probe_dist
++ DIST_OS=UNKNOWN
++ DIST_VENDOR=UNKNOWN
++ DIST_FILES=
++ '[' -r '/etc/*-release' ']'
++ '[' -r /etc/debian_version ']'
++ DIST_FILES= /etc/debian_version
++ '[' '!' ' /etc/debian_version' = '' ']'
++ DIST_OS=Linux
++ '[' -r /etc/kondara-release ']'
++ '[' -r /etc/redhat-release ']'
++ '[' -r /etc/SuSE-release ']'
++ '[' -r /etc/turbolinux-release ']'
++ '[' -r /etc/debian_version ']'
++ DIST_VENDOR=debian
++ echo ccc-6.5.9.001-6
++ cut -b 1-3
+ PREFIX=ccc
+ '[' ccc '!=' cxx -a ccc '!=' ccc ']'
+ '[' ccc = cxx ']'
+ PROD_NAME=C
+ CCC_ROOT=/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux
+ echo 'Installed as ccc-6.5.9.001-6'
+ '[' debian = UNKNOWN ']'
+ cat /etc/debian_version
+ check_gcc_usage
+ '[' /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4 = '' ']'
+ '[' '!' -r /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs ']'
+ PGM=int main(int argc, char **argv) {return 0;}
+ echo 'int main(int argc, char **argv) {return 0;}'
++ basename /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
+ GCC_VER=2.95.4
+ env -i 
PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11 
gcc -v -V 2.95.4 
/tmp/ccc_install10006.c -o /tmp/ccc_install10006
+ cat - /tmp/ccc_install10006.log
Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char 
**argv) {return 0;}".
   The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
+ aborting
+ cleanup
+ rm -f /tmp/ccc_install10006 /tmp/ccc_install10006.c /tmp/ccc_install10006.log
+ '[' ccc = cxx ']'
+ cat
Aborting

If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
by entering a command in the following format:

create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]

The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:

/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
+ exit 1


On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 12:37:54AM +0200, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
> Try putting 'sh -x' in front of the command. Pipe it into less or
> something, to see what the darn thing is actually trying to do.
> 
> 
>

Re: more on Ccc install problem

2003-05-27 Thread Timothy Timmons

I must admit I don't really know what I'm doing, but it seems to me
you CAN'T run gcc with both -v and -V at the same time. 

LX:~# gcc -v -V 2.95.4
gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
LX:~# gcc -V 2.95.4 -v
gcc: couldn't run `alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4': No such file or directory
LX:~# gcc -V 2.95.4
gcc: couldn't run `alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4': No such file or directory

Also it would appear the -V option is broken by itself too, but again
it could need something else I don't know about. Either that, or the
current gcc-2.95/alpha in unstable is broken.

I don't really know what to try next.

-Tim



On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:48:11PM -0400, Timothy Timmons wrote:
> Below is the full output, I however believe I see what the problem is..
> 
> These two lines:
> 
> + env -i 
> PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11
>  gcc -v -V 2.95.4
> 
> and later gcc returns this:
> 
> gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> 
> Hehehe.
> 
> I'll try changing that in the script and see what happens.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> LX:~# sh -x 
> /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4 |less
> + 
> SAVE_PROG_NAME=/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
> + SAVE_ARGS=ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> + CCC_VERSION=ccc-6.5.9.001-6
> + '[' ccc-6.5.9.001-6 = '' ']'
> + GCC_PATH=/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> ++ dirname 
> /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
> + . /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/probe_linux.sh init
> -bash: less: command not found
> ++ probe_dist
> ++ DIST_OS=UNKNOWN
> ++ DIST_VENDOR=UNKNOWN
> ++ DIST_FILES=
> ++ '[' -r '/etc/*-release' ']'
> ++ '[' -r /etc/debian_version ']'
> ++ DIST_FILES= /etc/debian_version
> ++ '[' '!' ' /etc/debian_version' = '' ']'
> ++ DIST_OS=Linux
> ++ '[' -r /etc/kondara-release ']'
> ++ '[' -r /etc/redhat-release ']'
> ++ '[' -r /etc/SuSE-release ']'
> ++ '[' -r /etc/turbolinux-release ']'
> ++ '[' -r /etc/debian_version ']'
> ++ DIST_VENDOR=debian
> ++ echo ccc-6.5.9.001-6
> ++ cut -b 1-3
> + PREFIX=ccc
> + '[' ccc '!=' cxx -a ccc '!=' ccc ']'
> + '[' ccc = cxx ']'
> + PROD_NAME=C
> + CCC_ROOT=/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux
> + echo 'Installed as ccc-6.5.9.001-6'
> + '[' debian = UNKNOWN ']'
> + cat /etc/debian_version
> + check_gcc_usage
> + '[' /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4 = '' ']'
> + '[' '!' -r /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs ']'
> + PGM=int main(int argc, char **argv) {return 0;}
> + echo 'int main(int argc, char **argv) {return 0;}'
> ++ basename /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> + GCC_VER=2.95.4
> + env -i 
> PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11
>  gcc -v -V 2.95.4 
> /tmp/ccc_install10006.c -o /tmp/ccc_install10006
> + cat - /tmp/ccc_install10006.log
> Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char 
> **argv) {return 0;}".
>The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
> gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> + aborting
> + cleanup
> + rm -f /tmp/ccc_install10006 /tmp/ccc_install10006.c 
> /tmp/ccc_install10006.log
> + '[' ccc = cxx ']'
> + cat
> Aborting
> 
> If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
> by entering a command in the following format:
> 
> create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]
> 
> The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:
> 
> /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> + exit 1
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 12:37:54AM +0200, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
> > Try putting 'sh -x' in front of the command. Pipe it into less or
> > something, to see what the darn thing is actually trying to do.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: ccc and cfal on alphas

2004-10-07 Thread Steve Langasek

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 06:00:57PM -0300, Thadeu Penna wrote:

> Are those compilers still in development? Where can I get the lastest
> versions? If not, there is an free alternative to compile f90
> source codes? Please, do not reply saying both fortran and compaq
> compilers are both dead :(

I think I heard a rumor that gcc 4.0 is going to support f90.

As for ccc, AFAIK Compaq's website has always been the only legal source
for it.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ccc and cfal on alphas

2004-10-08 Thread Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr]

ccc and cfal are both available, but I doubt that they are in
development; the downloads from HP's site are two years old.

Also, you need to 'ask' HP to send you a crypt key to uncrypt the
downloads.

ftp://ftp.compaq.com/pub/products/linuxdevtools/latest/downloads.html

Caveat:  I had some difficulty getting these to work on sarge, due
to strangeness in gcc.  For some reason, the installer of the alpha
compilers uses gcc for some aspect of the install.  gcc did not
work right, so the install failed.  I had to change the gcc specs
file and the alpha compiler's install script.  But once installed
the compilers appear to work fine.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Thadeu Penna wrote:

  >
  > Are those compilers still in development? Where can I get the lastest
  > versions? If not, there is an free alternative to compile f90
  > source codes? Please, do not reply saying both fortran and compaq
  > compilers are both dead :(
  >
  > --
  >  ___  _ .''`.
  >   | |_  _. _| _  |_) _ ._ ._  _.   : :'  :
  >   | | |(_|(_|(/_|_|  |  (/_| || |(_|   `. `'`
  > Linux User #50500`-
  > Prof.Adjunto - Instituto de Física  ---Debian-
  > Universidade Federal Fluminense Alpha/i386
  >
  >

---
Toni Harbaugh-Blackford   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Administrator
Advanced Biomedical Computing Center (ABCC)
National Cancer Institute
Contractor - SAIC/Frederick

Re: ccc and cfal on alphas

2004-10-11 Thread Helge Kreutzmann

Hello Toni,
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 06:34:22AM -0400, Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr] 
wrote:
 
> Caveat:  I had some difficulty getting these to work on sarge, due
> to strangeness in gcc.  For some reason, the installer of the alpha
> compilers uses gcc for some aspect of the install.  gcc did not
> work right, so the install failed.  I had to change the gcc specs
> file and the alpha compiler's install script.  But once installed
> the compilers appear to work fine.

I encountered this too and opened a bug report on this. Can you please
send the required modifications to 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks!

Greetings

Helge

-- 
Helge Kreutzmann, Dipl.-Phys.   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   gpg signed mail preferred 
64bit GNU powered  http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm
   Help keep free software "libre": http://www.freepatents.org/


pgpJPhinhzQYY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Shlibs with fortran source in ccc

2002-03-11 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Okay, minor clarification...
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
The really bizarre thing is that for PETSc 2.1.0 and the older fort 
(the -2 RPM, installed by cfal...-1.deb), it worked just fine with 
-lcpml. The old libpetsc.so contains the symbol for_write_seq_lis, but 
the linker is somehow finding it without -lfor.
Actually, for some reason, the 2.1.0 shared libs were never built, so 
-lpetsc was linking against libpetsc.a.  The old libpetsc.a has that 
for_write_seq_lis symbol, and that links with a C binary just fine.

If I use the new 2.1.1 libpetsc.a, that works fine too.  And when I make 
a shlib from the old 2.1.0 libpetsc.a, that fails with missing 
for_write_seq_lis.  So that's cool, it's not a compiler version issue.

I'm just building my shared lib wrong, or perhaps, there's just 
something different about shared libs which is making it drop that 
symbol...  I can't find other options on the ld manpage that would 
help...  Here it is again:

The old and new shared libs were linked in exactly the same way, using:
${LD} -shared -soname $$LIBNAME.${SLSUFFIX}.${SLVERSION} 
-whole-archive $$LIBNAME.a -o $$LIBNAME.${SLSUFFIX}.${SLVERSION}

I also tried mkdir tmp; ar x ../$$LIBNAME.a; same LD command with *.o 
instead of $$LIBNAME.a, same error.
So the question is: how do I build a shared lib with mixed fortran/C 
sources (including a fortran write statement) such that a C program can 
link to it?  Fortran programs can link fine because they have MAIN__...

Thanks for any help you can provide,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-04 Thread Bob McElrath

As usual, I forgot the patch...

Bob McElrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to recompile several packages with Compaq's C Compiler (ccc),
> and would like input from the rest of you as to making this as smooth as
> possible.  (For those that don't know, ccc generates vastly superior
> code on the alpha, and should be the compiler of choice unless it is
> known that it can't compile a given package)
> 
> I want to be able to:
> apt-get source 
> cd 
> CC=ccc CFLAGS=-O3 dpkg-buildpackage
> for any package in debian.
> 
> The main problem I've run into so far is that libtool does not recognize
> ccc.  Specifically, it does not recognize that ccc can create shared
> libraries.  For packages that use aclocal to generate an aclocal.m4
> file, this can be fixed by patching /usr/share/aclocal/libtool.m4 (patch
> attached against debian unstable libtool)  For packages that use
> aclocal, aclocal *must* be run to re-generate this file or the changes
> won't be seen.  For packages that include an ltconfig file it must be
> patched by hand in the same way (look at the patch -- the change is the
> same).
> 
> Could this be done in an automated way?
> 
> Does anyone else have any experience doing this?
> 
> Would there be any legal or technical trouble with putting ccc-compiled
> packes in the debian repository?
> 
> Cheers,
> Bob McElrath [Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics]
> 
> "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the
> freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
> 



Cheers,
Bob McElrath [Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics]

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the
freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

--- ../libtool-1.4.3/libtool.m4 Tue Feb  4 22:06:40 2003
+++ /usr/share/aclocal/libtool.m4   Tue Feb  4 22:05:13 2003
@@ -972,6 +972,21 @@
   fi
   ;;
 
+linux*)
+  $rm conftest.c
+  cat > conftest.c <&5; (eval $ac_try) 2>&5; }; } | egrep yes >/dev/null 2>&1; then
+# All DEC C code is PIC.
+wl='-Wl,'
+link_static_flag='-non_shared'
+  fi
+  $rm conftest.c
+  ;;
+
 *)
   lt_cv_prog_cc_can_build_shared=no
   ;;


pgpSmJRLpuFtX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-04 Thread Steve Langasek

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:23:29PM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> I'm trying to recompile several packages with Compaq's C Compiler (ccc),
> and would like input from the rest of you as to making this as smooth as
> possible.  (For those that don't know, ccc generates vastly superior
> code on the alpha, and should be the compiler of choice unless it is
> known that it can't compile a given package)

> Would there be any legal or technical trouble with putting ccc-compiled
> packes in the debian repository?

Legal trouble: I don't think the "hobbyist" license for ccc from Compaq
allows you to use it in compiling binaries for distribution; at least,
that was my impression when last I looked.

Technical trouble: I don't think there's much chance any Debian
autobuilder will be using ccc any time soon, which means you can only
upload such packages (without ruffling feathers) by a) making sure your
build is accepted before the autobuilder even *thinks* about trying the
package, or b) getting approval to do a source NMU for every package you
want recompiled in this manner.

Philosophical trouble: it's important that nothing in Debian's main
archive be dependent on non-free software, even when this results in
software that's suboptimal in one way or another.  As an alpha user, I
would love to see optimized binaries that could squeeze more cycles out
of the hardware; but for Debian, dependence on a proprietary compiler is
too high a price to pay.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

pgpLLICi6OgC7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Phil Carmody

--- Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philosophical trouble: it's important that nothing in Debian's main
> archive be dependent on non-free software, even when this results in
> software that's suboptimal in one way or another.  As an alpha user, I
> would love to see optimized binaries that could squeeze more cycles out
> of the hardware; but for Debian, dependence on a proprietary compiler is
> too high a price to pay.

However, this very principal ensures that every package comes in two forms,
pre-built binary, and source. Making ccc and the source packages both
cooperate for the largest number of users would kill many birds with a
handful of stones. After several attempts (in several years), I've still
not got ccc working, but that's mainly due to Compaq releasing new versions,
the version numbers being initimately tied to the .debs, and generally due 
to not having my ear close enough to the ground.

Phil

=
Shuttle mystery solved - at this speed, you'd disintegrate too!
http://the-black-hole.org/additions/american_technology.jpg
(Yes, the same trustworthy news source as american_geography.jpg)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Doug Larrick

Would there be any legal or technical trouble with putting
ccc-compiled packes in the debian repository?
Several comments here... I'd love to see some packages built with ccc 
but fear it's not really practical for Debian as a whole for reasons 
others have stated.

There's the issue that ccc / cxx has gotten harder to get recently ... 
you have to *deserve* to get the RPMs, with your reason approved by a 
human.  And evidently "aw, c'mon I used to work with you guys" is not a 
good enough reason.  I'd say this software is (unfortunately) slowly 
becoming less free.

Any C++ code is hopeless -- AFAIK, cxx does not conform to the new name 
mangling/ABI standard set by gcc 3.2 so once you touch something you 
quickly have to build all C++ packages with cxx.

Ccc does not support some of the gcc extensions, notably variable 
number of macro arguments.  This issue (and others like it) is a killer 
for packages that use these features (thankfully, not many).

I think the best way to get some key packages built with ccc is 
probably to
a) build them yourself or
b) clear binary redistribution with HP, then set up an outside-Debian 
apt archive with these packages

You might get the libtool maintainers to accept your patches for 
redistribution -- there's nothing inherently non-free about them, and 
would make this task easier.  I tried to get the DEC C folks to do this 
(internal to Compaq) when I worked there, but they did not bite.

Then there's the fact that gcc3 generates far superior code for Alpha 
than gcc2 ever did -- and doesn't have the nagging optimizer bugs so 
'-O0' workarounds of the past on certain packages can go away.

-Doug

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Falk Hueffner

Bob McElrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm trying to recompile several packages with Compaq's C Compiler
> (ccc), and would like input from the rest of you as to making this
> as smooth as possible.  (For those that don't know, ccc generates
> vastly superior code on the alpha, and should be the compiler of
> choice unless it is known that it can't compile a given package)

Well, that used to be the case, but nowadays, I seem to find it
generating worse code as often as better code compared to gcc. So it
is certainly not justified to generally prefer it. Do you have any
specific package in mind that does noticeably benefit? If so, one
could try to improve gcc for it...

-- 
Falk

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Matt Zimmerman

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:04:06PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:

> Well, that used to be the case, but nowadays, I seem to find it
> generating worse code as often as better code compared to gcc. So it
> is certainly not justified to generally prefer it.

Especially not when considering the license.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Bob McElrath

Since everyone immediately gravitated to legal issues, I repost the
technical piece.  ;)

I have joined the libtool mailing list and will add ccc as a recognized
compiler to libtool.  Are there other issues with 
apt-get source ... dpkg-buildpackage
that anyone knows of?  (aside from ccc failing to compile some files)

Since people claim gcc3 is so good, I will have to run some
benchmarks...

Bob McElrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to recompile several packages with Compaq's C Compiler (ccc),
> and would like input from the rest of you as to making this as smooth as
> possible.  (For those that don't know, ccc generates vastly superior
> code on the alpha, and should be the compiler of choice unless it is
> known that it can't compile a given package)
> 
> I want to be able to:
> apt-get source 
> cd 
> CC=ccc CFLAGS=-O3 dpkg-buildpackage
> for any package in debian.
> 
> The main problem I've run into so far is that libtool does not recognize
> ccc.  Specifically, it does not recognize that ccc can create shared
> libraries.  For packages that use aclocal to generate an aclocal.m4
> file, this can be fixed by patching /usr/share/aclocal/libtool.m4 (patch
> attached against debian unstable libtool)  For packages that use
> aclocal, aclocal *must* be run to re-generate this file or the changes
> won't be seen.  For packages that include an ltconfig file it must be
> patched by hand in the same way (look at the patch -- the change is the
> same).
> 
> Could this be done in an automated way?
> 
> Does anyone else have any experience doing this?

Cheers,
Bob McElrath [Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics]

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the
freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman



pgpPOe6ex4k99.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Colin Watson

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:11:31AM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> Since everyone immediately gravitated to legal issues, I repost the
> technical piece.  ;)
> 
> I have joined the libtool mailing list and will add ccc as a recognized
> compiler to libtool.  Are there other issues with 
> apt-get source ... dpkg-buildpackage
> that anyone knows of?  (aside from ccc failing to compile some files)

You'll find that a lot of Debian source packages set CFLAGS themselves,
and may use gcc-specific flags. It's not obvious whether it's a bug that
they don't honour a user-set CFLAGS: I can see arguments on both sides
(autobuild consistency versus user overrides). Since as far as I know we
don't have any policy on this, you may well find yourself having to
change some debian/rules files.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Ted Goodridge, Jr

It was my (perhaps ignorant?) understanding that GCC3.2 closed the gap (at
least made the gap a lot smaller) between GCC and CCC.  Am I wrong?  (I have
yet to test this, however, as I don't have GCC3.2 working on my alpha.)

Ted
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc


> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:11:31AM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> > Since everyone immediately gravitated to legal issues, I repost the
> > technical piece.  ;)
> >
> > I have joined the libtool mailing list and will add ccc as a recognized
> > compiler to libtool.  Are there other issues with
> > apt-get source ... dpkg-buildpackage
> > that anyone knows of?  (aside from ccc failing to compile some files)
>
> You'll find that a lot of Debian source packages set CFLAGS themselves,
> and may use gcc-specific flags. It's not obvious whether it's a bug that
> they don't honour a user-set CFLAGS: I can see arguments on both sides
> (autobuild consistency versus user overrides). Since as far as I know we
> don't have any policy on this, you may well find yourself having to
> change some debian/rules files.
>
> --
> Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Bas Zoetekouw

Hi Ted!

You wrote:

> It was my (perhaps ignorant?) understanding that GCC3.2 closed the gap (at
> least made the gap a lot smaller) between GCC and CCC.  Am I wrong?  (I have
> yet to test this, however, as I don't have GCC3.2 working on my alpha.)

I'm not sure if the gap has become smaller, but ccc still generated code
that is a lot faster than gcc-3.2.

For example, take a look at these results from SCIbench
(http://math.nist.gov/scimark2), generated on an quadruple-proc EV67
machine (running Tru64 Unix btw, not Linux):

Compaq C compiler, V6.4-014 
CFLAGS = -arch ev67 -fast -O4
| Composite Score:  195.47
| FFT Mflops:   207.66(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   235.00(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:53.33
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:   177.93(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   303.42(M=100, N=100)

GNU C compiler, V3.2.1
CFLAGS = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mcpu=ev67
| Composite Score:  137.18
| FFT Mflops:   188.23(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   167.08(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:49.71
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:   163.85(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   117.03(M=100, N=100)

-- 
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw  | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
++

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Falk Hueffner

Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm not sure if the gap has become smaller, but ccc still generated code
> that is a lot faster than gcc-3.2.
> 
> For example, take a look at these results from SCIbench
> (http://math.nist.gov/scimark2), generated on an quadruple-proc EV67
> machine (running Tru64 Unix btw, not Linux):
> 
> Compaq C compiler, V6.4-014 
> CFLAGS = -arch ev67 -fast -O4
> | Composite Score:  195.47
> GNU C compiler, V3.2.1
> CFLAGS = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mcpu=ev67
> | Composite Score:  137.18

Well, you can beef up gcc's score a bit with -funroll-loops and
-fprefetch-array-loops (ccc does these optimizations without needing
to be kicked). On an 800MHz ev68 (with some background load) I get:

gcc version 3.2.2 20030131 (Debian prerelease)
CFLAGS = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mcpu=ev67 -funroll-loops 
-fprefetch-loop-arrays 
| Composite Score:  149.17
| FFT Mflops:   226.05(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   186.61(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:57.64
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:   106.21(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   169.36(M=100, N=100)

Compaq C V6.5-001
CFLAGS = -arch ev67 -fast -O4
| Composite Score:  170.43
| FFT Mflops:   247.80(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   226.62(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:53.78
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:92.64(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   231.30(M=100, N=100)

Well, still 14% better, but this is with a benchmark from an area
where ccc really excels. However, this benchmark is way from
representive for most stuff in Debian; it uses lots of floating point,
a tiny code working set, large data working sets, and simple data
access patterns. (BTW, I guess it could be sped up a lot with the
superpage kernel patch
(http://shimizu-lab.dt.u-tokai.ac.jp/lsp.html).)

It would really be nice if there was a useful free benchmark, like
specint, with real world code from diverse areas... does any body know
one?

-- 
Falk

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-05 Thread Phil Mendelsohn

Bas Zoetekouw writes: 

For example, take a look at these results from SCIbench
(http://math.nist.gov/scimark2), generated on an quadruple-proc EV67
machine (running Tru64 Unix btw, not Linux): 

Compaq C compiler, V6.4-014 
CFLAGS = -arch ev67 -fast -O4
| Composite Score:  195.47
| FFT Mflops:   207.66(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   235.00(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:53.33
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:   177.93(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   303.42(M=100, N=100) 

GNU C compiler, V3.2.1
CFLAGS = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mcpu=ev67
| Composite Score:  137.18
| FFT Mflops:   188.23(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   167.08(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:49.71
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:   163.85(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   117.03(M=100, N=100)
I don't know -- really the only thing where the ccc code really shines is 
the LU factorization.  Composite scores are only about 30% better for ccc.  
I think this is one of those discussion with sufficiently many vagaries to 
get a different opinion from almost every participant. 

I like ccc; the back end is really some nifty engineering (GEM is involved 
on this, right?), but that is typical of Alpha things that started at DEC.
That was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... 

Cheers,
Phil Mendelsohn
--
"To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." -- Anonymous

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-06 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 05:54:18PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
 
 > You'll find that a lot of Debian source packages set CFLAGS
 > themselves, and may use gcc-specific flags. It's not obvious whether
 > it's a bug that they don't honour a user-set CFLAGS: I can see
 > arguments on both sides (autobuild consistency versus user
 > overrides). Since as far as I know we don't have any policy on this,
 > you may well find yourself having to change some debian/rules files.

 Uhm...

$ cat > test
CFLAGS = -O2 -fweird-gcc-option

all:
    @echo $(CFLAGS)
^D
$ CFLAGS="-O2 -fweirder-ccc-option" make -f test 
-O2 -fweird-gcc-option
$ CFLAGS="-O2 -fweirder-ccc-option" make -e -f test 
-O2 -fweirder-ccc-option

 obviously I missed your point... getting this sort of stuff to
 percolate down from debian/rules to arbitraly deep make calls is
 another thing, but presumably if you are setting CFLAGS in debian/rules
 you (the maintainer) already took care of that problem.

 -e is generally not the smartest thing to use, but since you are
 autobuilding, you can control what's in the environment.

-- 
Marcelo

Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

2003-02-06 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Hi Ted!
You wrote:
 

It was my (perhaps ignorant?) understanding that GCC3.2 closed the gap (at
least made the gap a lot smaller) between GCC and CCC.  Am I wrong?  (I have
yet to test this, however, as I don't have GCC3.2 working on my alpha.)
   

I'm not sure if the gap has become smaller, but ccc still generated code
that is a lot faster than gcc-3.2.
For example, take a look at these results from SCIbench
(http://math.nist.gov/scimark2), generated on an quadruple-proc EV67
machine (running Tru64 Unix btw, not Linux):
Compaq C compiler, V6.4-014 
CFLAGS = -arch ev67 -fast -O4
| Composite Score:  195.47
| FFT Mflops:   207.66(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   235.00(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:53.33
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:   177.93(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   303.42(M=100, N=100)

GNU C compiler, V3.2.1
CFLAGS = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mcpu=ev67
| Composite Score:  137.18
| FFT Mflops:   188.23(N=1024)
| SOR Mflops:   167.08(100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops:49.71
| Sparse matmult  Mflops:   163.85(N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU  Mflops:   117.03(M=100, N=100)
 

I don't know much about the others, but LU is likely to be this 
different because ccc links to cxml with Kazushige Goto's assembler 
BLAS.  Those have always been free, and are also in ATLAS now, so at 
least for that benchmark, we can do as well with free software.

Or if both LUs are compiled from code, well, then we can do better than 
both with free software, as Goto's BLAS blow away anything compiled.

Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

gcc still not catching up with ccc ?

2003-06-15 Thread Jan Lentfer

Hi list,

I remember that I read somewhere that since the release of gcc 3.2 it was
catching up with the performance of the Compaq-CC. So, as I was a little bored
today I bootstrapped gcc-3.3 on my PWS 500 and compiled "treepuzzle"
(www.tree-puzzle.de) to use as a benchmark for the compiler performance.
For gcc I used CFLAGS="-O3 -ffast-math -mcpu=ev56", for ccc CFLAGS="-O4 -fast
-mcpu=ev56".
I don't want to go into the details of the computations I did, here are just the
results (program defaults were used, except were noted):

globin.a, 1.000.000 puzzling steps, exact parameter estimates
ccc = 120 sec (22,6 % faster)
gcc-3.3 = 148 sec (4,5 % faster)
gcc-2.95 = 155 sec

globina.a, 10.000.000 puzzling steps, exact paramter estimates
ccc = 1211 sec (20,85 % faster)
gcc-3.3 = 1419 (7,25 % faster)
gcc-2.95 = 1530

So, gcc-3.3 is a little faster than 2.95 on Alpha but still can't catch up with
Compaq's ccc (I used 6.2.9.506-4).

Anyone else did benchmarks like this?

Cheers,

Jan

Re: more on Ccc install problem (fixed it)

2003-05-27 Thread Timothy Timmons

Oops. I just realized it's gcc-3.3 that won't take -v and -V at the
same time. gcc-2.95 WILL fine though. I simply changed the symlink
in /usr/bin for gcc to point to gcc-2.95 and it ran correctly!

Hehehe.


On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:20:24PM -0400, Timothy Timmons wrote:
> I must admit I don't really know what I'm doing, but it seems to me
> you CAN'T run gcc with both -v and -V at the same time. 
> 
> LX:~# gcc -v -V 2.95.4
> gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> LX:~# gcc -V 2.95.4 -v
> gcc: couldn't run `alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4': No such file or directory
> LX:~# gcc -V 2.95.4
> gcc: couldn't run `alpha-linux-gcc-2.95.4': No such file or directory
> 
> Also it would appear the -V option is broken by itself too, but again
> it could need something else I don't know about. Either that, or the
> current gcc-2.95/alpha in unstable is broken.
> 
> I don't really know what to try next.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:48:11PM -0400, Timothy Timmons wrote:
> > Below is the full output, I however believe I see what the problem is..
> > 
> > These two lines:
> > 
> > + env -i 
> > PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11
> >  gcc -v -V 2.95.4
> > 
> > and later gcc returns this:
> > 
> > gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> > 
> > Hehehe.
> > 
> > I'll try changing that in the script and see what happens.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > LX:~# sh -x 
> > /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> > ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
> > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4 |less
> > + 
> > SAVE_PROG_NAME=/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
> > + SAVE_ARGS=ccc-6.5.9.001-6 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> > + CCC_VERSION=ccc-6.5.9.001-6
> > + '[' ccc-6.5.9.001-6 = '' ']'
> > + GCC_PATH=/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> > ++ dirname 
> > /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh
> > + . /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/probe_linux.sh init
> > -bash: less: command not found
> > ++ probe_dist
> > ++ DIST_OS=UNKNOWN
> > ++ DIST_VENDOR=UNKNOWN
> > ++ DIST_FILES=
> > ++ '[' -r '/etc/*-release' ']'
> > ++ '[' -r /etc/debian_version ']'
> > ++ DIST_FILES= /etc/debian_version
> > ++ '[' '!' ' /etc/debian_version' = '' ']'
> > ++ DIST_OS=Linux
> > ++ '[' -r /etc/kondara-release ']'
> > ++ '[' -r /etc/redhat-release ']'
> > ++ '[' -r /etc/SuSE-release ']'
> > ++ '[' -r /etc/turbolinux-release ']'
> > ++ '[' -r /etc/debian_version ']'
> > ++ DIST_VENDOR=debian
> > ++ echo ccc-6.5.9.001-6
> > ++ cut -b 1-3
> > + PREFIX=ccc
> > + '[' ccc '!=' cxx -a ccc '!=' ccc ']'
> > + '[' ccc = cxx ']'
> > + PROD_NAME=C
> > + CCC_ROOT=/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux
> > + echo 'Installed as ccc-6.5.9.001-6'
> > + '[' debian = UNKNOWN ']'
> > + cat /etc/debian_version
> > + check_gcc_usage
> > + '[' /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4 = '' ']'
> > + '[' '!' -r /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4/specs ']'
> > + PGM=int main(int argc, char **argv) {return 0;}
> > + echo 'int main(int argc, char **argv) {return 0;}'
> > ++ basename /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> > + GCC_VER=2.95.4
> > + env -i 
> > PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11
> >  gcc -v -V 2.95.4 
> > /tmp/ccc_install10006.c -o /tmp/ccc_install10006
> > + cat - /tmp/ccc_install10006.log
> > Error: gcc -V 2.95.4 failed to compile and link "int main(int argc, char 
> > **argv) {return 0;}".
> >The ccc installation expects a working installation of GCC.
> > gcc: `-V' must come at the start of the command line
> > + aborting
> > + cleanup
> > + rm -f /tmp/ccc_install10006 /tmp/ccc_install10006.c 
> > /tmp/ccc_install10006.log
> > + '[' ccc = cxx ']'
> > + cat
> > Aborting
> > 
> > If you can correct the problem, you can rerun this script manually
> > by entering a command in the following format:
> > 
> > create-comp-config.sh ccc-version [gcc-path]
> > 
> > The current invocation of create-comp-config.sh was:
> > 
> > /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/bin/create-comp-config.sh 
> > ccc-6.5.9.001-6 
> > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2.95.4
> > + exit 1
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 12:37:54AM +0200, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
> > > Try putting 'sh -x' in front of the command. Pipe it into less or
> > > something, to see what the darn thing is actually trying to do.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: more on Ccc install problem (fixed it)

2003-05-29 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Timothy Timmons wrote:
Oops. I just realized it's gcc-3.3 that won't take -v and -V at the
same time. gcc-2.95 WILL fine though. I simply changed the symlink
in /usr/bin for gcc to point to gcc-2.95 and it ran correctly!
So now it all works?
I wonder what the problem could have been.  The postinst script should 
properly use the full gcc-2.95 path when invoking create-comp-config.sh...

For future reference, instead of purging and reinstalling, you should be 
able to just do "dpkg-reconfigure ccc".
--

-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

O: ccc, cxx, libots, cpml, cxml, cfal, cfalrtl, libffm

2006-11-17 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Package: wnpp

Greetings,

I'm afraid my last piece of alpha hardware has gone out the door, and I
am no longer a linux-alpha or debian-alpha user. :-(  I'll have fond
memories of the machines and of lists like this one and linux-alpha, as
this was my first Linux platform, and my demonstration of its
performance/price in the late 90s initiated a Linux transition at my
former employer, in no small part thanks to the volunteer help I got,
and hopefully gave back.

Oh well.  More importantly for this list, I am no longer able to
maintain the DEC->Compaq->HP alpha compiler and math library installers,
nor the "free fast math" libffm of Goto and Wesner.  Unfortunately this
means I need to orphan them, and hope they find a maintainer.

libffm should be in good shape and, as far as I know, need little to no
maintenance at all, unless someone wants to add to the library.
Upstream has long since stopped supporting it, and though some of its
code has migrated to glibc, it has some unique and extremely
fast/powerful vectorized functions.  For example dsqrtiv() very rapidly
performs 1/sqrt(x) for an array of doubles; this function on the fastest
alpha may still be faster than glibc on the fastest Xeon or Opteron for
this purpose.

As for the others, because a three year campaign to get Compaq to let me
distribute the non-free libraries and (encrypted) compilers hit dead
ends, the biggest maintenance hassle is updating the debconf templates
to keep track of the elusive download URLs.  They also have template
translation bugs open which I never got to, and which will be dealt with
by NMUs around the end of this month; apologies to the translation
authors for the delay.  These too are long since abandoned by upstream,
and gcc/glibc have been catching up to them in performance, so their
need is not clear at this point.

Sorry about the sudden nature of this right before the etch release.  I
should have anticipated the effect of this change on my packages long
ago and done something preemptive about it. :-(

Best wishes for the continued upkeep of this great architecture and
platform!

Regards,
-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Linking C main() to shlibs with Fortran sources using ccc/fort

2002-04-16 Thread Adam C Powell IV

Greetings,
I'd like to link some shlibs with some Fortran source to some C programs 
using the Compaq compilers to compile everything.  Trouble is, some of 
the Fortran objects need symbols like for_write..., which are provided 
by libfor.so, and that in turn needs this "MAIN__()" symbol, which is 
*only* provided by an fort-compiled object file with a Fortran PROGRAM 
statement, it's not in any of the libs which come with fort, nor in 
for_main.o.

I've noticed that if the libs are static, linking works just fine, but 
if I rebuild objects to shared libs using:

${LD} -shared -soname,$$LIBNAME.${SLSUFFIX} -o $$LIBNAME.${SLSUFFIX} *.o
then linking against the resulting shlibs fails with an undefined 
reference to MAIN__() in libfor.so.  Also, if I provide a C function like:

void MAIN__()
{
   printf ("hello world\n");
}
then it links fine, but hello world is never printed, so the function is 
never entered.  I'd really like to not have to provide this bit of code 
for this one arch/compiler combo...

Is there a way to do this?
Thanks,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

91 matches

Mail list logo