 |
 |
Hi Derek, No problem really. As Pete pointed out, I was under the wrong impression. I thought that all Solaris compiler support would be dropped. I usually go with the latest compiler anyway. So, if the latest will be supported then go ahread. I never did like the stupid cache directory stuff. Andy On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Derek Feichtinger wrote: > Hi, Andy > > the problem is not with Forte compiler in general, just with Forte version 7 > and the way it handles templated classes (by putting separate object files in > special cache folders in the directory where the objects get created). This > results in lots of problems with libtool, because libtool moves object files > around (especially convenience libraries) and thereby the template objects > may get lost. > Also, I experienced a whole number of issues with multiply defined symbols, > deriving from libraries containing the same symbols deriving from templates. > In GNU and also in the newer Solaris compilers there are no such problems > (these symbols are defined as weak, and the linker is not disturbed by > multiple identical weak symbols). > > There is no problem with the newer Forte compilers and I think the support for > Forte7 will run out soon. I had some discussions with the Authors of libtool > about this issue and I'm not sure whether you find many packages that are > complex and use templates. At least they told me that Solaris is one of the > "more difficult" systems. > > But maybe you can give me some tips, I'm no Solaris expert. But I believe that > a nice autotools build is really something valuable, because it is such a > standard and it makes package building for many distributions so much easier. > (standard make targets, respects $prefix and $DESTDIR, automatic tarball > building and sanity check. Possibility to create multiple compiled versions > with different options/architectures all referring to the same sources > directories, configure script with standard behavior) > > Cheers, > Derek > > > > > > > > On Monday 26 September 2005 13.52, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote: > > Hi Pete, > > > > No, I think it would be wrong to disallow using the Forte compiler. In > > general, that compiler picks up errors that other compilers do not and > > produces better code on Solaris/Sparc. Additionally, it provides me with a > > good dbx-able debug version that I don't get from gcc. In general, it > > would be a royal pain for me if I could not use that compiler. Since > > autotolls does work with that cmpiler for other packages (I have used > > packages that use autotools and the Solaris compiler), I don't immediately > > see what the problem is and, whatever it is, why it can't be circumvented. > > > > Andy > > > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Peter Elmer wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Derek and I talked on Friday about the migration to autotools. The main > > > outstanding issue (with libtool) would be solved by dropping support > > > for building xrootd with Workshop6 and Forte7 on Solaris. Is there > > > anybody out there who builds xrootd themselves with Forte7 on Solaris > > > rather than using one of the binary downloads? > > > > > > [Andy, I see you still have Forte7 as the default compiler on your > > > machine at SLAC, but I'm guessing that this is just because BaBar > > > constrained this to be the compiler installation on the Sol9 machines. Is > > > that correct? (Anybody know which compiler version shipped with Sol9? In > > > any case the BaBar SRT overrides the default compiler version and > > > actually uses the Studio9 installation from afs in the latest releases.] > > > > > > I _think_ SLAC and In2p3 were the main sites which had solaris and I > > > think that both of them use the binary downloads. ROOT appears to > > > support "CC5.5", which must be XXXX8 (where XXXX8 is whatever name Sun > > > chose between Forte7 and Studio9, how tedious Sun is...). Derek thought > > > that there should be no issues with XXXX8, but was going to verify this. > > > > > > This said, if nobody sees any urgent reason to keep support for > > > building xrootd with Workshop6 and Forte7, I would propose that we will > > > do the following: > > > > > > o Since nobody has reported big problems with xrootd 20050920-0008, > > > I can declare that a "production" build (the last one supporting > > > Workshop6 and Forte7, effectively) (Wilko?) > > > > > > o Derek and I can do the autotools migration on top of this coming > > > week and produce another version completely equivalent (for the > > > existing xrootd code, plus an optional module for the authorization > > > for Alice) to 20050920-0008 up to the autotools changes (and no > > > Workshop6 or Forte7 support). This would also be the starting point for > > > the next round of development. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > thanks, > > > Pete > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Peter Elmer E-mail: [log in to unmask] Phone: +41 (22) 767-4644 > > > Address: CERN Division PPE, Bat. 32 2C-14, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Dr. Derek Feichtinger Tel: +41 22 767 10 07 > LCG/ARDA Group email: [log in to unmask] > CERN http://people.web.psi.ch/feichtinger > CH-1211 Genève 23 > > >