[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux
From: |
Rafael Laboissiere |
Subject: |
Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:10:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
* Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden> [2009-02-22 21:21]:
> I don't recokn this is the reason. I bet that on the amd64,
> OCTAVE_INT_USE_LONG_DOUBLE is defined, unlike on mipsel. Isn't that
> so?
Yes, I think so. I do not have the full Octave sources on each machine, but
looking from the code in configure.in:
#if (SIZEOF_LONG_DOUBLE >= 10) && defined (HAVE_ROUNDL)
#define OCTAVE_INT_USE_LONG_DOUBLE
#endif
and looking from the build log for the Debian octave3.1 package, version
3.1.52-4 [1]:
* mipsel:
checking for roundl... yes
checking for long double... yes
checking size of long double... 8
* i386:
checking for roundl... yes
checking for long double... yes
checking size of long double... 12
* hppa:
checking for roundl... yes
checking for long double... yes
checking size of long double... 8
* sparc:
checking for roundl... yes
checking for long double... yes
checking size of long double... 16
* powerpc
checking for roundl... yes
checking for long double... yes
checking size of long double... 16
[1] http://experimental.debian.net/build.php?pkg=octave3.1
On amd64 the size of long double is 16. This means that compilation of
oct-inttype.cc fails on all architectures where OCTAVE_INT_USE_LONG_DOUBLE
is undefined (mipsel and hppa) and succeed on the others (amd64, i386,
sparc, and powerpc). Note that the compilation on sparc fails for another
reason (procstream.cc:32976802: error: expected unqualified-id).
I would guess that the problem lies in the Octave sources, whenever
OCTAVE_INT_USE_LONG_DOUBLE in undefined. It does not seem to be a gcc 4.3.3
bug. BTW, I just tried to undef OCTAVE_INT_USE_LONG_DOUBLE in config.h and
I can replicate the "ambiguous template specialization" compilation failure
on amd64.
--
Rafael
- 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Marco Atzeri, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, John W. Eaton, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux,
Rafael Laboissiere <=
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Marco Atzeri, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Marco Atzeri, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Marco Atzeri, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Marco Atzeri, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/22
- Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux, Marco Atzeri, 2009/02/22