Dear François, Le dimanche 6 novembre 2016 12:09:51 UTC+1, François a écrit : > > I should be a bit more specific about why I don’t think it is a > real “fix”. > It works for the new pie enforcing debian version of gcc. We can put > that as a fact. It does so by replacing “-Wl,-r” by “-r”, so instead > of passing “-r” to the linker, gcc is now using a “-r” option directly > that passes the right magic to the linker presumably. > > Presumably because I don’t have any documentation about “-r” in the > version > of gcc 5.4.0 I have installed here. >
Neither do I perusing gcc 6.2.0 doc... > > So, is this a new gcc 6+ option, an undocumented option or a specific > option of that debian compiler? In 2 out of 3 cases that means adopting > the debian fix will break on other compiler/distro. > > Which may be why they didn’t follow it up to upstream flint/arb. It is a > debian specific patch. If this is the case the fix can only be applied > conditionally. > Which involves a bit of black magic in autotools configuration files I do not (yet) know how to do. > > I may be poking myself in the eye here but I think just adopting the patch > is risky. > Could we try the "Great White Shark" methof (i. e. bite and see what happens) ? You could try compiling flint/arb with this patch with your gcc 5.4.x you say you have installed and report back the ravages... HTH, -- Emmanuel Charpentier > > François > > > On 6/11/2016, at 23:29, Francois Bissey <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > I don’t like the debian fix. In fact it doesn’t look like a fix at all. > > I would need a serious explanation of their change. > > That “-Wl,-r” already caused trouble in spack last month (on OS X) and > as it > > turns out it was spack's compiler wrappers’ fault. I am inclined to say > > that debian did something nasty or not well thought about to gcc. > > > > Which feels rather improbable on the part of debian but we never know. > > > > François > > > >> On 6/11/2016, at 23:15, Emmanuel Charpentier <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> > >> After manually upgrading pip, I still get a raft of failed test. It > seems (see uploaded log) that those are due to pip advertising a > deprecation of teh format used for the database. > >> > >> One errot (on simplicial_complex.py) is genuine ; this test appasses > with no errors when run standalone (a long standing problem with this test. > >> > >> I conclude that : > >> - the patches pointed by Dima do solve the problem of compiling > flint and arb on Debian testing > >> - another problem is introduced by pip advertising. > >> > >> Questions : > >> - Should I package the patches that solve Trac#21782 > >> - Should I create a new ticket about pip's newfound verbosity ? > >> > >> HTH, > >> > >> -- > >> Emmanuel Charpentier > >> > >> Le dimanche 6 novembre 2016 09:40:15 UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier a > écrit : > >> A second attempt at rebuilding after distcleant gives the same results > : a raft of errors mostly bound to pip's advertising. However, I an not > sure of what I read in the results of tolerance.py... > >> > >> I'll re-upgrade pip and post the results. > >> > >> HTH, > >> > >> -- > >> Emmanuel Charpentier > >> > >> > >> Le dimanche 6 novembre 2016 03:20:26 UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier a > écrit : > >> Sorry for being late : I had a severe NMI from the Real World (TM). > >> > >> Using the patches pointed by Dima succeed in compiling Sage. However, I > dat a raft of failutes which mostly relate to pip being outdated. > >> > >> Updating pip "by hand" (./sage -pip install --upgrade pip) was a bad > mistake : different errors at the same point, > >> > >> I'll (make distclean && make ptestlong ) again overnight and post the > hopefully clean) log tomorrow. > >> > >> HTH, > >> > >> PS : about penalties for abusing compilers : did you consider this ? > >> > >> -- > >> Emmanuel Charpentier > >> > >> Le dimanche 6 novembre 2016 01:04:36 UTC+1, François a écrit : > >> Apologies if you missed my later post. I had read the patch in reverse. > >> You do the correct thing and they cripple it. In a curious way too. > >> > >> I suspect they do PIE (position independent executable - a relative of > PIC) > >> wrong. > >> > >> +1 about having severe penalties for crippling compilers. > >> > >> François > >> > >>> On 6/11/2016, at 12:19, 'Bill Hart' via sage-release < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 5 November 2016 at 20:11, Francois Bissey < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> That was clearly a mistake in flint/arb in the first place. “-r” is a > flag > >>> for the linker, not sure what gcc was doing with it in the first > place. > >>> > >>> -Wl is supposed to pass the option to the linker. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage-release" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >> <ptestlong.log> > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage-release" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
