[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 20040630: netcdf-3.5.1 on Solaris x86

Matt,

>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:20:35 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <address@hidden>
>Organization: MESO, Inc.
>To: <address@hidden>
>Subject: Re: 20040630: netcdf-3.5.1 on Solaris x86
>Keywords: 200406181713.i5IHDnWb026226

The above message contained the following:

> Sorry about that, I tried to put both streams in there but I'm not too
> familiar with Solaris and anytime I tried to use the command I am used to
> (2>&1) I got an "ambiguous output redirect error".

That will work with a standard user-shell.  You're probably using a
non-standard shell (e.g., csh(1)).

> The attached configure.log has everything included in it though.
> 
> The '-tp p6' option has to do with the fortran compiler.  They are running
> on a pentium 4, but the Solaris OS can only handle/interpret up to pentium
> 3 commands/executables (or so I am told).  So that flag tells the compiler
> to generate a pent 3 exec.  That is why I am wondering if there needs to
> be a similar flag for the C compiler.

My manual page for the pgf90 compiler indicates that "-tp p6" is for
Pentium  Pro/II processors.  The option "-tp px", however, should "work
on any x86-compatible processor".  You might try that instead.

This point is moot, however, since we're still struggling with the C
interface.

> uname -a:
> SunOS acmes3 5.8 Generic_108529-23 i86pc i386 i86pc
> 
> /usr/local/bin/gcc -v:
> Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i386-pc-solaris2.8/3.1/specs
> Configured with: ../configure --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as
> --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --disable-nls
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 3.1

Your O/S is older and your gcc(1) is newer than ours, so I can't
duplicate your problem.

However, we've never had to use a CPU-dependent option when compiling
with gcc(1).

The file "configure.log" that you sent didn't indicate any problems.

> Obviously this is a problem with something on their system and not with
> netCDF, and I am sure it will end up being a stupid mistake that should be
> glaringly apparenty on my part.  Thanks for the continued patience.

I'm afraid I've run out of ideas.

Good luck.

Regards,
Steve Emmerson