#10303: clean up sage-check-64 and use of SAGE64
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: jhpalmieri | Owner: GeorgSWeber
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: build | Keywords: 64
Author: John Palmieri | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Comment(by leif):
Replying to [comment:4 jhpalmieri]:
> Replying to [comment:3 leif]:
> > I think we could drop "uname-specific" messages (and it's unlikely
that `SAGE64` will work on 32-bit hosts).
> >
> > Note that `SAGE64=yes` is (currently) not supported (or doesn't make
sense) on anything but MacOS X and [Open]Solaris;
>
> If SAGE64 is set to "yes", then the compiler flag "-m64" is added by
certain spkgs with no check on the platform. Is it the case this flag has
no effect except on OS X and Solaris?
No. I think we should check the platform once, in `sage-check-64`. While
`-m64` is superfluous on systems defaulting to 64-bit builds (with `gcc`),
it's illegal on typical 32-bit systems.
`SAGE64=yes` should simply only be used on 64-bit MacOS X and
[Open]Solaris; we could give an error message on 32-bit systems, I think
no need to give a warning on 64-bit Linuces.
[[BR]]
> > The name of the variable (and the "flag" file) is odd anyway (it
should IMHO be `SAGE_FORCE_64BIT_BUILD`), and there's [currently] no
(analogous) way to force a 32-bit build on systems that default to
64-bit...
>
> I don't think we can change the name of the variable, but the flag file
could be renamed, since it's only used in sage-check-64. Any suggestions?
Well, we could use a new variable name but keep "backwards compatibility".
`sage-build-arch.txt` (or `-abi`) is perhaps inappropriate for a file
containing "yes" or "no"... ;-)
Just omit the actual filename from the message? (''"Recording build
ABI..."'') At least if `SAGE64=no`?
Changing the contents of the file (e.g. "32"/"64" instead of "no"/"yes")
is of course another option, but would currently only complicate the
tests. (Would make sense if we introduce `SAGE_BUILD_ABI` and set `SAGE64`
accordingly, or the other way around if `SAGE64` is set instead of that.
Then we could rename the script to e.g. `sage-check-abi` as well...)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10303#comment:5>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
