[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Jesús Cea Avión : -- nosy: +jcea ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Fixed in r79218 (trunk), r79220 (2.6), r79221 (py3k), r79222 (3.1). Thanks! -- resolution: -> fixed stage: -> committed/rejected status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Marc-Andre Lemburg : -- assignee: -> pitrou ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http:

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Stefan Krah wrote: > > Stefan Krah added the comment: > > (1) I can get around the configure problem by patching configure.in, > meaning that va_list is detected correctly now. Perhaps BASECFLAGS > should be used by default for the compile tests?

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Stefan Krah added the comment: (1) I can get around the configure problem by patching configure.in, meaning that va_list is detected correctly now. Perhaps BASECFLAGS should be used by default for the compile tests? (2) Now I run into the problem that distutils somehow ignores the L

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Stefan Krah wrote: > > Stefan Krah added the comment: > > The builds are almost identical, so I attach a diff of the build output. > For both builds, I used a fresh Python-3.1.1 directory. This looks > suspicious: > > -checking whether va_list is an arra

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Stefan Krah : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16024/basecflags-vs-patch-3.1.1-builddiff.txt ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Py

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Stefan Krah : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file16023/basecflags-vs-patch-3.1.1-builddiff.txt ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Stefan Krah added the comment: The builds are almost identical, so I attach a diff of the build output. For both builds, I used a fresh Python-3.1.1 directory. This looks suspicious: -checking whether va_list is an array... yes +checking whether va_list is an array... no For completeness' sak

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Stefan Krah wrote: > > Stefan Krah added the comment: > > Marc-Andre, > > on 64-bit Ubuntu, this method ... > > BASECFLAGS=-m32 LDFLAGS=-m32 ./configure > > ... results in a gcc segfault: > > > gcc -pthread -m32 -Xlinker -export-dynamic -o python \ >

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Stefan Krah added the comment: Marc-Andre, on 64-bit Ubuntu, this method ... BASECFLAGS=-m32 LDFLAGS=-m32 ./configure ... results in a gcc segfault: gcc -pthread -m32 -Xlinker -export-dynamic -o python \ Modules/python.o \ libpython3.2.a -lpth

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Roumen Petrov added the comment: > > Martin, can you please elaborate on this? I never heard of such > > "standards" in OSS. > > MAL already gave the link. From the link: > > Sometimes package developers are tempted to set user variables such as > CFLAGS because it appears to make their job ea

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Ronald Oussoren : -- nosy: +ronaldoussoren ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > Martin, can you please elaborate on this? I never heard of such > "standards" in OSS. MAL already gave the link. From the link: Sometimes package developers are tempted to set user variables such as CFLAGS because it appears to make their job easier. Howeve

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Roumen Petrov added the comment: Mark issue is 4010 (see message #msg94686 above) . About the control of the flags :) ... the Bob's post "... method will be implemented that will require hundreds of lines of code ..." is true. Order $(BASECFLAGS) @CFLAGS@ $(OPT) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) look good as fi

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Jack Jansen wrote: > > Jack Jansen added the comment: > >> Jack, could you please comment on why the LDFLAGS are added to > LDSHARED >> by configure, rather than using LDFLAGS as extra argument to LDSHARED > ? > > Because this worked, no deep reason. T

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Roumen Petrov wrote: > > Roumen Petrov added the comment: > > Marc-Andre, > Thanks for the reference but what about to open manual for AC_PROG_CC ? Could you please elaborate a bit ? > Antoine, > please don't mess kind of cross compilation into this thr

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Antoine, > please don't mess kind of cross compilation into this thread. This is not cross-compilation, a 32-bit binary will run fine on a x86-64 system. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Second, the patch allows me to do a 32-bit build (under 64-bit Linux) by > doing: > CFLAGS=-m32 LDFLAGS=-m32 ./configure > rather than: > CC="gcc -m32" ./configure > However, if I omit LDFLAGS it doesn't work, I don't know if it's

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Roumen Petrov added the comment: Marc-Andre, Thanks for the reference but what about to open manual for AC_PROG_CC ? Antoine, please don't mess kind of cross compilation into this thread. About patches: Change of libdir are subject to other requests - require changes in distutils - out of s

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: First, the current patch doesn't apply cleanly to trunk. The following patch should be ok (some of the changes of the original patch apparently have been committed separately in the meantime). Second, the patch allows me to do a 32-bit build (under 64-bit Linux

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Peter N added the comment: On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 09:31:38PM +, J??rg Prante wrote: > > J??rg Prante added the comment: > > > Without knowing the impact of the generic approach you've taken > > in your patch we simply cannot just apply it. If you can prove that > > the patch doesn't brea

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Jörg Prante added the comment: > Without knowing the impact of the generic approach you've taken > in your patch we simply cannot just apply it. If you can prove that > the patch doesn't break other platforms or configuration setups, > that would help a lot. I was able to build Python 2.5 on So

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Jack Jansen added the comment: > Jack, could you please comment on why the LDFLAGS are added to LDSHARED > by configure, rather than using LDFLAGS as extra argument to LDSHARED ? Because this worked, no deep reason. The initial framework builds were a big hack, because they were neither stat

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Bob Atkins wrote: > My money is that the fanatically 'correct' method will be implemented > that will require hundreds of lines of code, possibly re-engineering the > entire build process, introducing more problems and take a few more > years to implement an

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Bob Atkins added the comment: 3 years and counting while everyone rings their hands and debates this trivial issue. 3 years and counting while hundreds of builders encounter this problem wasting countless of hours troubleshooting, possibly re-reporting the problem. Software is not a religion -

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Bob Atkins wrote: > > As usual Martin is just flat wrong in his insistence that a defined > CFLAGS must overide any generated CFLAGS by configure to be consistent > with other OSS. But of course that is just his excuse for not accepting > this bug and fix.

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Jörg Prante added the comment: > [...] because it *still* > wouldn't follow the standards used in other OSS software, where setting > CFLAGS overrides *ALL* settings that configure may have come up with. Martin, can you please elaborate on this? I never heard of such "standards" in OSS. --

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Martin isn't the gatekeeper, it's just that few people are really motivated in solving tedious configuration-related problems, especially when there are diverging concerns (legacy, habits, compatibility, etc.) to take into account. That said, I think the curren

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Bob Atkins added the comment: I see that Martin's broken record still hasn't changed. I had warm, nostalgic feelings as I re-read this thread. It is so sad to see that this matter remains unresolved almost 3 years after I filed this bug. As usual Martin is just flat wrong in his insistence that

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: [Adding Jack Jansen to the nosy list, since he added the LDFLAGS parts for Mac OS X] Jack, could you please comment on why the LDFLAGS are added to LDSHARED by configure, rather than using LDFLAGS as extra argument to LDSHARED ? Thanks. -- nosy: +

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Martin v. Löwis wrote: > > Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > > [...] >> As second step, I think that the CFLAGS environment variable passed to >> configure should be made to init the BASECFLAGS Makefile variable, since >> that's what the user would exp

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: [...] > As second step, I think that the CFLAGS environment variable passed to > configure should be made to init the BASECFLAGS Makefile variable, since > that's what the user would expect (if he knew how the system works). I still think that such a patch wou

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Roumen Petrov added the comment: Only about LDFLAGS. The python build system evolve and executable and libraries are build with LDFLAGS as is. So except passing LDFLAGS to setup.py rest of Bob Atkins patch is in the makefile. As part of issue 4010 I post a patch "py-issue-4010.patch" (thanks to

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Perhaps we can get some movement regarding this problem again, as it also applies to other platforms that require special gcc options for the compiler and linker. A common case where such settings were needed is Mac OS X - in the case of building universal

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Roumen Petrov : -- nosy: +rpetrov ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pyth

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10031/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10033/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10524/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10526/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10525/DigiLink_esig_logo.jpg ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-lis

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10527/DigiLink_esig_logo.jpg ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-lis

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Jörg Prante added the comment: Hi Bob, thank you for your patch. I spent hours on Solaris 10 SPARC to get almost the same analysis. Just a detail, I ended up patching $LDFLAGS in the SunOS 5 part in the configure.in file (like other architectures like Darwin have set their LDFLAGS there, too).

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Bob Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I rest my case - you found /_*one*_/ of the problems which you are blaming on gcc but in fact is not gcc's fault. You /_*must*_/ specify the correct -L and -R paths to the various alternate 64 bit libs. Don't expect the compiler to figure it ou

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Just to demonstrate there is really a problem with the gcc installation (gcc version 3.4.3 (csl-sol210-3_4-branch+sol_rpath)), here is the linker line: gcc -m64 -shared build/temp.solaris-2.10-sun4u-2.5/net/tb0/home/loewis/25/Modules/_struct

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Bob Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Martin, Your method is just flat wrong - equivalent to using a sledgehammer. The libraries fail to link not because gcc install is wrong but because the -m64 flag needs to be passed to the linker. Your method just fixes the compilation stage.

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > Your method is just flat wrong - equivalent to using a sledgehammer. The > libraries fail to link not because gcc install is wrong but because the > -m64 flag needs to be passed to the linker. And indeed, the flag *is* passed to the link

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > So, since this patch allows python to be built 64-bit on a biarch > system, and without it, the build doesn't work This is simply not true. I can build Python 2.5 just fine for 64-bit SPARC, using gcc, with CC="gcc -m64" ./configure make

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Peter N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Martin, On solaris 10 x86, this patch makes it possible to build python 2.5.x. Without it, there is no way for the automated build to work. I believe that your characterization of it as "Therefore, I claim that this makes things more complex, and do

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Just to repeat my concern about this patch: It gives the impression of supporting CFLAGS, but doesn't really. There *is* a hard rule that CFLAGS given to configure should override any options passed to configure, and there is a reason for tha

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Sérgio Durigan Júnior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 02:01 +, Bob Atkins wrote: > I don't know why you are resisting this change. I took the time to > report the bug, proposed a fix /_*and*_/ contributed the patch that > would make the Python build process mor

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Sérgio Durigan Júnior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi Martin, On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:04 +, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > > This is what you get when you try to build a 64-bit Python on a biarch > > machine (64-bit kernel, 32-

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Bob Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Martin, Martin v. Löwis wrote: It does not when link stage specific options are required that are not valid for compilation stages. My mistake. I was thinking of another package - you can scratch that comment. There is no hard and fast rule

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > Your suggestion for using the CC variable to fix the problem that I > reported won't work - I already tried it and based on what others are > reporting, you are beating a dead horse. Believe me I would rather not > modify anyone's code i

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Bob Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Martin, I've been quietly reading all of the back and forth regarding this problem. Your suggestion for using the CC variable to fix the problem that I reported won't work - I already tried it and based on what others are reporting, you are be

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > This is what you get when you try to build a 64-bit Python on a biarch > machine (64-bit kernel, 32-bit userspace), using a gcc that generates > natively 32-bit objects (therefore, you *must* pass the '-m64' option > for the compiler): Or

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Sérgio Durigan Júnior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi Martin, This is what you get when you try to build a 64-bit Python on a biarch machine (64-bit kernel, 32-bit userspace), using a gcc that generates natively 32-bit objects (therefore, you *must* pass the '-m64' option for the compi

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > Actually, I know that you can use CC to do it, but IMHO that's not the > correct approach. I understand too you concern about adding @CFLAGS@, > but I think the user should be able to define his/her own CFLAGS, and > this is not implemented

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Sérgio Durigan Júnior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi Martin, Actually, I know that you can use CC to do it, but IMHO that's not the correct approach. I understand too you concern about adding @CFLAGS@, but I think the user should be able to define his/her own CFLAGS, and this is not i

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > Thanks for your quick answer. I'd like to know what can we do to push > this patch into upstream. Does the fact that the patch is posted in a > bug report (and not in a developer's mailing list) is slowing down the > reviewing process? No,

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Sérgio Durigan Júnior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi Martin, Thanks for your quick answer. I'd like to know what can we do to push this patch into upstream. Does the fact that the patch is posted in a bug report (and not in a developer's mailing list) is slowing down the reviewing pro

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > I'd like to know the status of this issue. I'm having the same problems > here with PPC64, and the patch that Bob Atkins has sent works fine for > me too. Would you intend to apply this patch in upstream? > > Thanks in advance. It's diffi

[issue1628484] Python 2.5 64 bit compile fails on Solaris 10/gcc 4.1.1

Sérgio Durigan Júnior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi, I'd like to know the status of this issue. I'm having the same problems here with PPC64, and the patch that Bob Atkins has sent works fine for me too. Would you intend to apply this patch in upstream? Thanks in advance. -