MPC version 0.8 released!

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

MPC version 0.8 has been released:
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/mpc-discuss/2009-November/000608.html

You can download the tarball here:
http://www.multiprecision.org/index.php?prog=mpc&page=download

This release is for our purposes C99 feature-complete.  After some wider
portability testing, I will submit patches to make it mandatory for the
GCC bootstrap process.

Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
privately) the results of "make check".  Also include your target triplet,
and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.

                Thanks,
                --Kaveh

[Rainer Orth]

"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi@...> writes:

> Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
> privately) the results of "make check".  Also include your target triplet,
> and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.

target GCC GMP MPFR

sparc-sun-solaris2.11 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
i386-pc-solaris2.10 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
mips-sgi-irix6.5 3.4.5 4.3.0 2.3.2
alpha-dec-osf4.0f 3.4.4 4.2.1 2.3.2

All tests passed everywhere.

        Rainer

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

[Dennis Clarke-2]

> "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi@...> writes:
>
>> Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
>> privately) the results of "make check".  Also include your target
>> triplet,
>> and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
>
> target GCC GMP MPFR
>
> sparc-sun-solaris2.11 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
> i386-pc-solaris2.10 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
> mips-sgi-irix6.5 3.4.5 4.3.0 2.3.2
> alpha-dec-osf4.0f 3.4.4 4.2.1 2.3.2
>
> All tests passed everywhere.

what about sparc-sun-solaris2.10 ? sparc-sun-solaris2.9 and 2.8 ?



--
Dennis Clarke
dclarke@...  <- Email related to the open source Solaris
dclarke@...   <- Email related to open source for Solaris

[Rainer Orth]

Dennis Clarke writes:

> > "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi@...> writes:
> >
> >> Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
> >> privately) the results of "make check".  Also include your target
> >> triplet,
> >> and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
> >
> > target GCC GMP MPFR
> >
> > sparc-sun-solaris2.11 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
> > i386-pc-solaris2.10 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
> > mips-sgi-irix6.5 3.4.5 4.3.0 2.3.2
> > alpha-dec-osf4.0f 3.4.4 4.2.1 2.3.2
> >
> > All tests passed everywhere.
>
> what about sparc-sun-solaris2.10 ? sparc-sun-solaris2.9 and 2.8 ?

I don't have Solaris 8 anymore and no Solaris 9/SPARC system appropriate
for GCC testing.  I don't expect differences between Solaris 10 and 11
here, and frankly, I don't have the cycles (human, not machine) to do all
this testing, so I'm relying on user reports should unexpected problems
occur.

        Rainer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

[Dennis Clarke-2]

> Dennis Clarke writes:
>
>> > "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi@...> writes:
>> >
>> >> Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
>> >> privately) the results of "make check".  Also include your target
>> >> triplet,
>> >> and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
>> >
>> > target GCC GMP MPFR
>> >
>> > sparc-sun-solaris2.11 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
>> > i386-pc-solaris2.10 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
>> > mips-sgi-irix6.5 3.4.5 4.3.0 2.3.2
>> > alpha-dec-osf4.0f 3.4.4 4.2.1 2.3.2
>> >
>> > All tests passed everywhere.
>>
>> what about sparc-sun-solaris2.10 ? sparc-sun-solaris2.9 and 2.8 ?
>
> I don't have Solaris 8 anymore and no Solaris 9/SPARC system appropriate
> for GCC testing.  I don't expect differences between Solaris 10 and 11
> here, and frankly, I don't have the cycles (human, not machine) to do all
> this testing, so I'm relying on user reports should unexpected problems
> occur.
>
> Rainer

Thank you .. I have all that equipment here. I may not have the cycles
either but at least the servers are all here. If anyone in the GCC project
has the time .. I have the facilities.

--
Dennis Clarke
dclarke@...  <- Email related to the open source Solaris
dclarke@...   <- Email related to open source for Solaris

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

From: "Dennis Clarke" <dclarke@...>

>>> > target GCC GMP MPFR
>>> >
>>> > sparc-sun-solaris2.11 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
>>> > i386-pc-solaris2.10 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
>>> > mips-sgi-irix6.5 3.4.5 4.3.0 2.3.2
>>> > alpha-dec-osf4.0f 3.4.4 4.2.1 2.3.2
>>> >
>>> > All tests passed everywhere.
>>>
>>> what about sparc-sun-solaris2.10 ? sparc-sun-solaris2.9 and 2.8 ?

I've done sparc-sun-solaris2.9, it passed.  See:
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/mpc-discuss/2009-November/000608.html

Since sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is our official "primary platform" solaris for
gcc-4.5, it would be nice to have that checked as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html

Though I don't foresee any problems, if either of you have that box and can
find time to run the test and report back, I would very much appreciate it.

        Thanks,
        --Kaveh

[Mikael Pettersson-3]

Kaveh R. Ghazi writes:
 > From: "Dennis Clarke" <dclarke@...>
 >
 > >>> > target GCC GMP MPFR
 > >>> >
 > >>> > sparc-sun-solaris2.11 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
 > >>> > i386-pc-solaris2.10 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
 > >>> > mips-sgi-irix6.5 3.4.5 4.3.0 2.3.2
 > >>> > alpha-dec-osf4.0f 3.4.4 4.2.1 2.3.2
 > >>> >
 > >>> > All tests passed everywhere.
 > >>>
 > >>> what about sparc-sun-solaris2.10 ? sparc-sun-solaris2.9 and 2.8 ?
 >
 > I've done sparc-sun-solaris2.9, it passed.  See:
 > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/mpc-discuss/2009-November/000608.html
 >
 > Since sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is our official "primary platform" solaris for
 > gcc-4.5, it would be nice to have that checked as well.
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
 >
 > Though I don't foresee any problems, if either of you have that box and can
 > find time to run the test and report back, I would very much appreciate it.

sparc-sun-solaris2.10, gcc-4.4.2, gmp-4.3.1, mpfr-2.4.1, mpc-0.8
All 57 tests passed

[Eric Botcazou-3]

> what about sparc-sun-solaris2.10 ? sparc-sun-solaris2.9 and 2.8 ?

sparc-sun-solaris2.8 and sparc64-sun-solaris2.8 are OK as well (GCC 4.3.3, GMP
4.2.4, MPFR 2.3.2).

--
Eric Botcazou

[Paolo Carlini-3]

-- Kaveh,
> Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
> privately) the results of "make check".  Also include your target triplet,
> and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
>  
I'm testing for the first time a complete build of the compiler itself
with mpc, and I'm seeing something unexpected. I'm not sure if this
discussion belongs here, probably this is only about the proper
functioning of mpc itself, please correct me...

Anyway, the issue is simple: I installed mpc under /usr/local and the
configury properly recognized it and used it during the build. Then the
latter fails when building libgcc like this:

......./trunk-build/./gcc/cc1: error while loading shared libraries:
libmpc.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

It looks like I should add /usr/local/lib to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH for mpc?
I didn't expect that...

Thanks,
Paolo.

[Richard Guenther-2]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@...> wrote:

> -- Kaveh,
>> Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
>> privately) the results of "make check".  Also include your target triplet,
>> and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
>>
> I'm testing for the first time a complete build of the compiler itself
> with mpc, and I'm seeing something unexpected. I'm not sure if this
> discussion belongs here, probably this is only about the proper
> functioning of mpc itself, please correct me...
>
> Anyway, the issue is simple: I installed mpc under /usr/local and the
> configury properly recognized it and used it during the build. Then the
> latter fails when building libgcc like this:
>
> ......./trunk-build/./gcc/cc1: error while loading shared libraries:
> libmpc.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
>
> It looks like I should add /usr/local/lib to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH for mpc?
> I didn't expect that...

That's expected and true for all other build dependencies as well.

Richard.

[Paolo Carlini-3]

Richard Guenther wrote:
> That's expected and true for all other build dependencies as well.
>  
Humm, ok. Frankly, I'm not sure it's generally true, I should double
check, I mean, for cloog and ppl, which I also have in /usr/local, I can
build without...

Paolo.

[Eric Botcazou-3]

> Anyway, the issue is simple: I installed mpc under /usr/local and the
> configury properly recognized it and used it during the build. Then the
> latter fails when building libgcc like this:
>
> ......./trunk-build/./gcc/cc1: error while loading shared libraries:
> libmpc.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
>
> It looks like I should add /usr/local/lib to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH for mpc?
> I didn't expect that...

Delete the shared library and keep only the static one.

--
Eric Botcazou

[Paolo Carlini-3]

Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Delete the shared library and keep only the static one.
>  
Ah, that's more interesting, thanks Eric.

Should --with-mpc-lib=/usr/local also work? I do use
--with-libelf=/usr/local for libelf (the only non-trivial configure) and
it works fine...

Paolo.

[Eric Botcazou-3]

> Should --with-mpc-lib=/usr/local also work? I do use
> --with-libelf=/usr/local for libelf (the only non-trivial configure) and
> it works fine...

I don't think this will change anything, the shared libraries will be picked
if they are present at link time.  You can configure gmp, mpfr, mpc, etc
with --disable-shared in order not to build them or delete them afterwards.

--
Eric Botcazou

[Paolo Carlini-3]

Eric Botcazou wrote:
> I don't think this will change anything, the shared libraries will be picked
> if they are present at link time.  You can configure gmp, mpfr, mpc, etc
> with --disable-shared in order not to build them or delete them afterwards.
>  
Right, ok. Indeed, your suggestion works fine. Now I have to double
check what I did at the time for cloog, ppl, etc, because I don't
remember having disabled shared anywhere, but anyway...

Paolo.

[Basile Starynkevitch]

Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I don't think this will change anything, the shared libraries will be picked
>> if they are present at link time.  You can configure gmp, mpfr, mpc, etc
>> with --disable-shared in order not to build them or delete them afterwards.
>>  
> Right, ok. Indeed, your suggestion works fine. Now I have to double
> check what I did at the time for cloog, ppl, etc, because I don't
> remember having disabled shared anywhere, but anyway...


On many Linux distributions you could configure /etc/ld.so.conf to add /usr/local/lib (or lib64).

I always do that -so no need to have a LD_LIBRARY_PATH- and IIRC some distributions already have that.

Regards.


--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: [phone]
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***

[Paolo Carlini-3]

Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> On many Linux distributions you could configure /etc/ld.so.conf to add
> /usr/local/lib (or lib64).
>
> I always do that -so no need to have a LD_LIBRARY_PATH- and IIRC some
> distributions already have that.
Interesting.

Anyway, besides my immediate needs of building a working compiler
including all the latest library-supported features, I'm more interested
in seeing a "pattern" in the way such libraries are configured. For
example, I can confirm that I have libppl, libcloog, and libelf built
normally, that is shared versions too, and installed in /usr/local/lib
and everything works fine (I have also older system libelf, that's why a
need to pass --with-libelf=/usr/local, nothing else). I'm still a bit
surprised mpc requires a different treatment (fwiw, gmp and mpfr come
with the distro and are installed in /usr/lib64)

Paolo.
 

[Richard Guenther-2]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@...> wrote:

> Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>> On many Linux distributions you could configure /etc/ld.so.conf to add
>> /usr/local/lib (or lib64).
>>
>> I always do that -so no need to have a LD_LIBRARY_PATH- and IIRC some
>> distributions already have that.
> Interesting.
>
> Anyway, besides my immediate needs of building a working compiler
> including all the latest library-supported features, I'm more interested
> in seeing a "pattern" in the way such libraries are configured. For
> example, I can confirm that I have libppl, libcloog, and libelf built
> normally, that is shared versions too, and installed in /usr/local/lib
> and everything works fine (I have also older system libelf, that's why a
> need to pass --with-libelf=/usr/local, nothing else). I'm still a bit
> surprised mpc requires a different treatment (fwiw, gmp and mpfr come
> with the distro and are installed in /usr/lib64)

I guess you have both lto and graphite support disabled.  Check by
running ldd on cc1 and lto1.

Richard.

> Paolo.
>
>

[Paolo Carlini-3]

Richard Guenther wrote:
> I guess you have both lto and graphite support disabled.  Check by
> running ldd on cc1 and lto1.
>  
Well, at configure time, the messages say both ppl an cloog are fine...

Anyway, this is for cc1:

        libcloog.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libcloog.so.0 (0x00007f1949991000)
        libppl_c.so.2 => /usr/local/lib/libppl_c.so.2 (0x00007f1949418000)
        libppl.so.7 => /usr/local/lib/libppl.so.7 (0x00007f1949154000)

Paolo.

[Paolo Carlini-3]

Richard Guenther wrote:
> I guess you have both lto and graphite support disabled.  Check by
> running ldd on cc1 and lto1.
>  
Oh, and of course lto works fine, I already did some experiments, it says:

       libelf.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libelf.so.0 (0x00007f59e5ea1000)

For lto1 is exactly the same.

Paolo.