Thread: [pure-lang-users] AMD-64 bit build problems
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
agraef
Menu
▾
▴
pure-lang-users
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-01 15:44:05
|
OK, I have just tested revision 18. Compiles just fine. Runs as far as test 7, which fails with segmentation fault. I notice you removed test 7 in revision 19 for that reason. Pure can now compute factorials! :) I may even start some programming. > fact n = n*fact (n-1) if n>0; > = 1 otherwise; > fact 4; 24 Thanks for your rapid fixes! Libor |
|
From: Albert G. <Dr....@t-...> - 2008-05-01 16:39:00
|
Libor Spacek wrote: > Runs as far as test 7, which fails with segmentation fault. > I notice you removed test 7 in revision 19 for that reason. Yep. I'm still working on that one, it's a bit trickier than I first expected. > Pure can now compute factorials! :) I may even start some programming. > >> fact n = n*fact (n-1) if n>0; >> = 1 otherwise; >> fact 4; > 24 Ahem, do you mean that you have it running on a 64 bit Ubuntu?? But Tim just reported that it doesn't work on 64 bit yet (albeit on Mac), not even the latest revision!! Can you please double-check that it's *really* a 64 bit OS that you're running there? (What does uname -a say?) Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu... WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag |
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-01 16:44:37
|
Albert, All those different 64bit systems are quite confusing. Anyway, this is what my uname -a returns: Linux ubuntu 2.6.24-16-generic #1 SMP Thu Apr 10 12:47:45 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux Is that good? :) Since I installed an amd-64 ISO file, I assumed I was running a 64 bit system... Libor 2008/5/1 Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...>: > Libor Spacek wrote: > > Runs as far as test 7, which fails with segmentation fault. > > I notice you removed test 7 in revision 19 for that reason. > > Yep. I'm still working on that one, it's a bit trickier than I first > expected. > > > Pure can now compute factorials! :) I may even start some programming. > > > >> fact n = n*fact (n-1) if n>0; > >> = 1 otherwise; > >> fact 4; > > 24 > > Ahem, do you mean that you have it running on a 64 bit Ubuntu?? But Tim > just reported that it doesn't work on 64 bit yet (albeit on Mac), not > even the latest revision!! Can you please double-check that it's > *really* a 64 bit OS that you're running there? (What does uname -a say?) > > Albert > > |
|
From: Tim H. <q...@st...> - 2008-05-01 16:50:31
|
"Libor Spacek" <li...@gm...> writes: > Albert, > All those different 64bit systems are quite confusing. Anyway, this is > what my uname -a returns: > Linux ubuntu 2.6.24-16-generic #1 SMP Thu Apr 10 12:47:45 UTC 2008 > x86_64 GNU/Linux > Is that good? :) Since I installed an amd-64 ISO file, I assumed I was > running a 64 bit system... Hmmm. | zsh, sauce 5:46PM trunk/ % uname -a | Linux sauce 2.6.24-1-amd64 #1 SMP Thu Mar 27 16:52:38 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux The x86_64 is promising but your -generic in the kernel name is an interesting departure. How about file /bin/ls ? ~Tim -- <http://spodzone.org.uk/> |
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-01 17:02:52
|
I know. With the previous Ubuntu (7.10 I think) I used to run k8 which was somehow supposed to be more 64bit than the 64bit but, frankly, I never understood how or why and nothing on it ever worked, so I stuck to the standard installation this time. What do you mean "How about file /bin/ls ?" Can you be more specific? -Libor > > The x86_64 is promising but your -generic in the kernel name is an > interesting departure. How about file /bin/ls ? > > ~Tim > |
|
From: Tim H. <q...@st...> - 2008-05-01 17:04:53
|
"Libor Spacek" <li...@gm...> writes: > I know. With the previous Ubuntu (7.10 I think) I used to run k8 which > was somehow supposed to be more 64bit than the 64bit but, frankly, I > never understood how or why and nothing on it ever worked, so I stuck > to the standard installation this time. What do you mean "How about > file /bin/ls ?" Can you be more specific? | zsh, sauce 5:48PM trunk/ % file /bin/ls | /bin/ls: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux | 2.6.8, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped My OS is definitely 64-bit. ~Tim -- <http://spodzone.org.uk/> |
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-01 17:12:16
|
OK, so is mine then because I get exactly the same: l@ubuntu:~/pure-lang/pure/trunk/test$ file /bin/ls /bin/ls: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped If it is any consolation, I was getting segmentation fault on the factorial as well last night but it went away with Albert's fix this morning, as I reported this morning. I am a bit worried about your compilation Tim, and those manual fixes you did. Libor 2008/5/1 Tim Haynes <q...@st...>: > "Libor Spacek" <li...@gm...> writes: > > > I know. With the previous Ubuntu (7.10 I think) I used to run k8 > which > > was somehow supposed to be more 64bit than the 64bit but, frankly, I > > never understood how or why and nothing on it ever worked, so I stuck > > to the standard installation this time. What do you mean "How about > > file /bin/ls ?" Can you be more specific? > > | zsh, sauce 5:48PM trunk/ % file /bin/ls > | /bin/ls: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for > GNU/Linux > | 2.6.8, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped > > My OS is definitely 64-bit. > > ~Tim > |
|
From: Tim H. <q...@st...> - 2008-05-01 17:32:54
|
"Libor Spacek" <li...@gm...> writes: > OK, so is mine then because I get exactly the same: > l@ubuntu:~/pure-lang/pure/trunk/test$ file /bin/ls > /bin/ls: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for > GNU/Linux 2.6.8, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped > > If it is any consolation, I was getting segmentation fault on the > factorial as well last night but it went away with Albert's fix this > morning, as I reported this morning. I am a bit worried about your > compilation Tim, and those manual fixes you did. Libor What manual fixes? As if make(1) clean wasn't enough, I cleaned out the directory entirely the hard way before the next svn update, long ago and at regular intervals since. However, I have pinned it down. A default nice make clean depend all gives me nasty segfaults; appending and extra `build=release' does not. So there appears to be a difference in CFLAGS: -g -Wall -> FAIL -O3 -DNDEBUG -Wall -> HAPPY and I can run both versions of `fact', and `make check', correctly. This is good to know :) ~Tim -- <http://spodzone.org.uk/> |
|
From: Eddie R. <er...@bm...> - 2008-05-01 19:14:12
|
Albert, So here is what someone needs to do to make Pure work on Ubuntu (64-bit): step 1: >From Synaptic package manager install: make g++ g++ 4.0 multilib flex bison libgmp3c2 libgmp3-dev readline5-dev ldtl-dev (Libor Spacek found this one) subversion **Steps 2 and 3 can be avoided by downloading: llvm_2.2-7_amd64.deb llvm-dev_2.2-7_amd64.deb then using the debian installer. step 2: Downloaded llvm 2.2 64-bit version from http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.2 step 3: >From a terminal: $ cd llvm-2.2 $ ./configure $ make $ sudo make install $ cd step 4: >From a terminal: $ svn co https://pure-lang.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pure-lang pure-lang step 5: >From a terminal: $ cd pure-lang/pure/trunk $ make build=release $ sudo make install $ cd Does this look ok Albert? Eddie |
|
From: Tim H. <q...@st...> - 2008-05-01 19:42:07
|
Eddie Rucker <er...@bm...> writes: > Albert, > > So here is what someone needs to do to make Pure work on Ubuntu > (64-bit): [snip] > > step 5: >>From a terminal: > $ cd pure-lang/pure/trunk > $ make build=release > $ sudo make install > $ cd > > Does this look ok Albert? Based on my experiences here with debian/testing, I'd say that's OK. ~Tim -- <http://spodzone.org.uk/> |
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-01 19:56:25
|
It is actually: libltdl3 libltdl3-dev -Libor 2008/5/1 Eddie Rucker <er...@bm...>: > Albert, > > So here is what someone needs to do to make Pure work on Ubuntu > (64-bit): > > step 1: > >From Synaptic package manager install: > make > g++ > g++ 4.0 multilib > flex > bison > libgmp3c2 > libgmp3-dev > readline5-dev > ldtl-dev (Libor Spacek found this one) > subversion > > **Steps 2 and 3 can be avoided by downloading: > llvm_2.2-7_amd64.deb > llvm-dev_2.2-7_amd64.deb > then using the debian installer. > > step 2: > Downloaded llvm 2.2 64-bit version from > http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.2 > > step 3: > >From a terminal: > $ cd llvm-2.2 > $ ./configure > $ make > $ sudo make install > $ cd > > step 4: > >From a terminal: > $ svn co https://pure-lang.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pure-lang > pure-lang<https://pure-lang.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pure-langpure-lang> > > step 5: > >From a terminal: > $ cd pure-lang/pure/trunk > $ make build=release > $ sudo make install > $ cd > > > Does this look ok Albert? > > Eddie > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference > Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. > Use priority code J8TL2D2. > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone > _______________________________________________ > pure-lang-users mailing list > pur...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pure-lang-users > |
|
From: Albert G. <Dr....@t-...> - 2008-05-03 12:34:03
|
Eddie Rucker wrote: > So here is what someone needs to do to make Pure work on Ubuntu Ok Eddie, I now made a separate INSTALL file which combines my orginal and your detailed instructions, as well as Libor's latest corrections. It would be nice if you could review that file and check that I didn't mess it up too much. ;-) Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu... WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag |
|
From: Tim H. <q...@st...> - 2008-05-01 16:46:24
|
Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> writes: >> Pure can now compute factorials! :) I may even start some programming. >> >>> fact n = n*fact (n-1) if n>0; >>> = 1 otherwise; >>> fact 4; >> 24 > > Ahem, do you mean that you have it running on a 64 bit Ubuntu?? But Tim > just reported that it doesn't work on 64 bit yet (albeit on Mac), not Er... | pure: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux | 2.6.8, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped This is not a mac :) > even the latest revision!! Speaking of which, can we have a --version option that includes the svn build#? ;) svn update nice make clean depend all sudo make install .. | zsh, sauce 5:44PM trunk/ % ./pure | [...] | Loaded prelude from /usr/local/lib/pure/prelude.pure. | | > fact n = n*fact (n-1) if n>0; | > = 1 otherwise; | > fact 4; | zsh: segmentation fault (core dumped) ./pure Always at at runtime.cc:901. Am I doing something wrong here? ~Tim -- <http://spodzone.org.uk/> |
|
From: Albert G. <Dr....@t-...> - 2008-05-01 17:45:07
|
Tim Haynes wrote: > This is not a mac :) Sorry, I thought I recalled that you you were using a Mac. No offense. :) -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu... WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag |
|
From: Tim H. <q...@st...> - 2008-05-01 18:20:31
|
Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> writes: > Tim Haynes wrote: >> This is not a mac :) > > Sorry, I thought I recalled that you you were using a Mac. No offense. :) None taken. My other machine is a mac - we'll see what happens when I get around to that! Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> writes: > Tim Haynes wrote: >> However, I have pinned it down. A default >> nice make clean depend all >> gives me nasty segfaults; appending and extra `build=release' does not. >> >> So there appears to be a difference in CFLAGS: >> -g -Wall -> FAIL >> -O3 -DNDEBUG -Wall -> HAPPY >> >> and I can run both versions of `fact', and `make check', correctly. >> >> This is good to know :) > > Indeed it is. :) So the segfault is somehow triggered by the extra > debugging code. Will have to look into that. But for the time being you > can just run the release build on 64 bit. ;-) Indeed. Trying to find a nice small script to port across to it now! ~Tim -- <http://spodzone.org.uk/> |
|
From: Albert G. <Dr....@t-...> - 2008-05-01 17:48:24
|
Tim Haynes wrote: > However, I have pinned it down. A default > nice make clean depend all > gives me nasty segfaults; appending and extra `build=release' does not. > > So there appears to be a difference in CFLAGS: > -g -Wall -> FAIL > -O3 -DNDEBUG -Wall -> HAPPY > > and I can run both versions of `fact', and `make check', correctly. > > This is good to know :) Indeed it is. :) So the segfault is somehow triggered by the extra debugging code. Will have to look into that. But for the time being you can just run the release build on 64 bit. ;-) Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu... WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag |
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-02 11:41:43
|
Revision 30, still on my Ubuntu 64-bit system gives: l@ubuntu:~/pure-lang/pure/trunk$ make check PURELIB=./lib ./pure -n -v7 lib/prelude.pure > test/prelude.log PURELIB=./lib ./pure -v7 test/test7.pure > test/test7.log Running tests. prelude.pure: passed test/test1.pure: FAILED test/test2.pure: passed test/test3.pure: passed test/test4.pure: passed test/test5.pure: passed test/test6.pure: passed test/test7.pure: passed |
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-02 12:06:21
|
The culprit is:
fact3 n = case n of
0 = 1;
n = n*fact3 (n-1) if n>1;
end;
I believe it is failing to match the zero case.
Forgive me if you already know about this and are "on the case".
2008/5/2 Libor Spacek <li...@gm...>:
> Revision 30, still on my Ubuntu 64-bit system gives:
>
> l@ubuntu:~/pure-lang/pure/trunk$ make check
> PURELIB=./lib ./pure -n -v7 lib/prelude.pure > test/prelude.log
> PURELIB=./lib ./pure -v7 test/test7.pure > test/test7.log
> Running tests.
> prelude.pure: passed
> test/test1.pure: FAILED
> test/test2.pure: passed
> test/test3.pure: passed
> test/test4.pure: passed
> test/test5.pure: passed
> test/test6.pure: passed
> test/test7.pure: passed
>
>
|
|
From: Albert G. <Dr....@t-...> - 2008-05-02 19:06:04
|
Libor Spacek wrote: > test/test1.pure: FAILED Ok, it seems that there still are some issues on 64 bit, even with the release build. Could you please send me the output of the following command? pure -v15 < test/test1.pure Thanks, Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu... WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag |
|
From: Libor S. <li...@gm...> - 2008-05-02 20:14:20
|
OK, I sent to you direct. Cheers, Libor 2008/5/2 Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...>: > Libor Spacek wrote: > > test/test1.pure: FAILED > > Ok, it seems that there still are some issues on 64 bit, even with the > release build. Could you please send me the output of the following > command? > > pure -v15 < test/test1.pure > > Thanks, > Albert > > -- > Dr. Albert Gr"af > Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany > Email: Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu... > WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference > Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. > Use priority code J8TL2D2. > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone > _______________________________________________ > pure-lang-users mailing list > pur...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pure-lang-users > |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X