Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > >> Prof Brian Ripley wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: >> <snipped earlier discussion on wine> >>>> >>>> BTW, I am also cross-compiling some R packages with the cross tools >>>> provided by Prof Ripley. Presumably it means that I need to hack away >>>> the bundled mingw stuff in the cross-tool and replaced them with the >>>> newer mingw libraries as well? (the whole thing with wine is so that >>>> I can cross-compile and test right away...) >>> >>> My belief is that the cross-tools I package build R 2.4.x but need >>> updating for 2.5.0. >>> >>> As I use x86_64 cross tools for R-devel it does not affect me, but I >>> will rebuild the tools on an i386 box in due course. >> >> My main use of the cross-tool is to build the windows binary of a >> custom R package (rather than R itself) - so that I can distribute it >> (after testing on some windows machines which are not equiped >> with development tools), so it is more important that the cross >> tool generates binaries which are compatible with the latest >> official windows binary distribution, rather than being able to >> build the latest development source as a whole. >> >> FWIW, I use the i386 cross-tool provided on x86_64, and also >> build wine as 32-bit and runs windows R that way. I am not >> even sure if it is possible to dual-boot windows on opteron if >> I had wanted to. (a waste, in any case...). >> >> It might be worth building the cross tools as 32-bit on x86_64 >> just so that what you use is the same as what you give away :-)? > > I do still have a i686 Linux machine, and I will use that to rebuild the > cross-tools and test them. There are some subtle differences (e.g. in > address formats), which is why I wanted to make sure that cross-building > on x86_64 was also possible. I know the i386 cross-tools do run on x86_64. > > The version from my i686 box is now on the website.
Oh yes, I meant the i386 cross-tool *you* provided on x86_64 . BTW, there are a bunch of ready-made cross tool rpm's on http://mirzam.it.vu.nl/mingw/ linked from wine's dev-guide: http://www.winehq.com/site/docs/winedev-guide/cross-compiling-tests >> (I only routinely build 3 packages as 32-bit rather than >> 64-bit on x86_64 - R for memory consumption, wine because it >> just isn't written for 64-bit, and ghostscript because >> a lot of font-rendering issues are 32-bit/64-bit sensitive). > > Then you probably don't use Java, where there seem major 64-bit issues > (starting with the missing browser plug-in, and including very few of > the Java-based R packages working on most combinations of JRE and OS: I > did briefly get a JRE working on FC5). I do use Java, just not in relation to R - it has been a while since I played with SJava. Sun's JDK (32-bit) has been working consistently. On FC5 x86_64 the default gcj-based JRE was a bit funny, but since upgraded to FC6, I found the gcj-based JRE on x86_64 can run haploview (http://www.broad.mit.edu/mpg/haploview/) reasonably well. If you want 64-bit R working with a 64-bit JRE, the gcj-based jre seems to be the only route. I have built something involving JNI recently using the gcj-based jdk seems alright. (it did finish compilation - it is a suite of applications [http://gridengine.sunsource.net/], only a small part is JNI based and I don't know the specific part well enough to judge for an mis-compilation or broken functionality). Hin-Tak ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
