On 2014-12-04 21:03, François Bissey wrote:
gcc 4.0.1 is definitely too old to build 4.9.x.
Are you sure about this statement or are you just guessing?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-release" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop rec
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:29:03 kcrisman wrote:
> On Thursday, December 4, 2014 3:26:09 PM UTC-5, kcrisman wrote:
> > > Incidentally, though I don't think I'd want to do this long-term, I
> >>
> >> think I
> >>
> >> > might be interested in pulling off one final set of binaries for PPC
> >>
> >> fo
On Thursday, December 4, 2014 3:26:09 PM UTC-5, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, though I don't think I'd want to do this long-term, I
>> think I
>> > might be interested in pulling off one final set of binaries for PPC
>> for
>> > Sage 6.4.1 if it were not too hard to go back to commit 9f
>
> > Incidentally, though I don't think I'd want to do this long-term, I
> think I
> > might be interested in pulling off one final set of binaries for PPC for
> > Sage 6.4.1 if it were not too hard to go back to commit 9f3a73e9 in
> > build/pkgs/gcc/ only - would that screw anything up?
> I
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:58:42 kcrisman wrote:
> Bad news for old Mac fans... Is gcc 4.0.1 sufficient to build gcc 4.9.2? I
>
> > couldn't find an explicit statement on the internet. I was able to
> > successfully compile earlier betas for Sage 6.4, so I have a feeling that
> > the switch to 4.9.2
Bad news for old Mac fans... Is gcc 4.0.1 sufficient to build gcc 4.9.2? I
> couldn't find an explicit statement on the internet. I was able to
> successfully compile earlier betas for Sage 6.4, so I have a feeling that
> the switch to 4.9.2 is why gcc won't build for me now on OS X 10.4 PPC
Bad news for old Mac fans... Is gcc 4.0.1 sufficient to build gcc 4.9.2? I
couldn't find an explicit statement on the internet. I was able to
successfully compile earlier betas for Sage 6.4, so I have a feeling that
the switch to 4.9.2 is why gcc won't build for me now on OS X 10.4 PPC.
See ht
>
>
> Surveying http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.bugs/413564 it seems
> like we need to set clang++ instead, okay, I didn't even know that
> existed... trying AGAIN.
>
Still going but looks good so far. See
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17397 - I've made this a blocker since it
pre
>
> Ah, I think the problem is that /usr/bin/clang is the one doing it in
>> 4.7.3, while in 4.9.2 it's g++ doing that. I don't know how to check what
>> that is but presumably it is i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-g++-4.2
>>
>> So maybe, when clang is present, we need to have that doing the compiling
>
> I suspect that the 4.9 series is the problem here - not a bug, just not
>> compatible. Downloading 6.4.beta6 to test this hypothesis.
>>
>>
> A partial (parallel) log is at
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kcrisman/gcc-4.7.3.p1.log but no
> problems, and (interestingly) the same opti
>
>
> A recent clang is supposed to understand -Wno-narrowing. Are you sure your
>> xcode/command line tools are up to date?
>>
>
> Yes. Xcode 4.6.3 is the last that runs on OS X 10.7.
>
> I suspect that the 4.9 series is the problem here - not a bug, just not
> compatible. Downloading 6.4.be
> A recent clang is supposed to understand -Wno-narrowing. Are you sure your
> xcode/command line tools are up to date?
>
Yes. Xcode 4.6.3 is the last that runs on OS X 10.7.
I suspect that the 4.9 series is the problem here - not a bug, just not
compatible. Downloading 6.4.beta6 to test t
A recent clang is supposed to understand -Wno-narrowing. Are you sure your
xcode/command line tools are up to date?
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:29:12 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> Can you try again? It worked with 6.4 and we didn't change anything that
>> pertains to gcc in 6.4.1.
>>
>>
> I
> Can you try again? It worked with 6.4 and we didn't change anything that
> pertains to gcc in 6.4.1.
>
>
I tried twice, same thing. I wonder if the fact that I have been just
upgrading time by time is why my other installations are working okay? I'm
sure it has something to do with the 4.9
Can you try again? It worked with 6.4 and we didn't change anything that
pertains to gcc in 6.4.1.
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:40:34 AM UTC, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> Get the updated "master" git branch or source tarball:
>> http://sage.sagedev.org/home/release/sage-6.4.1.tar.gz
>>
>>
> Downl
>
> mkdir common
> mkdir common/.deps
> config.status: executing default commands
> make[4]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2
> make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
>
> real 2m37.652s
> user 0m36.100s
> sys 0m33.567s
>
> Error installing pa
> Get the updated "master" git branch or source tarball:
> http://sage.sagedev.org/home/release/sage-6.4.1.tar.gz
>
>
Downloaded the tarball, set SAGE_FAT_BINARY="yes" and
mkdir common
mkdir common/.deps
config.status: executing default commands
make[4]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2
make[3]: *
17 matches
Mail list logo
