[ python-Bugs-970334 ] 2.3.4 fails build on solaris 10 - complexobject.c

[SourceForge.net]

Bugs item #970334, was opened at 2004-06-10 12:46
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dlr
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=970334&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Build
Group: Platform-specific
Status: Closed
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: JD Bronson (lonebandit)
Assigned to: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Summary: 2.3.4 fails build on solaris 10 - complexobject.c

Initial Comment:
this has been an ongoing issue:

gcc -c -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -g -O3 -Wall -
Wstrict-prototypes -I. -I./Include  -DPy_BUILD_CORE -o 
Objects/classobject.o Objects/classobject.c
gcc -c -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -g -O3 -Wall -
Wstrict-prototypes -I. -I./Include  -DPy_BUILD_CORE -o 
Objects/cobject.o Objects/cobject.c
gcc -c -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -g -O3 -Wall -
Wstrict-prototypes -I. -I./Include  -DPy_BUILD_CORE -o 
Objects/complexobject.o Objects/complexobject.c
Objects/complexobject.c: In function `complex_pow':
Objects/complexobject.c:469: error: invalid operands to 
binary ==
Objects/complexobject.c:469: error: wrong type 
argument to unary minus
Objects/complexobject.c:469: error: invalid operands to 
binary ==
Objects/complexobject.c:469: error: wrong type 
argument to unary minus
make: *** [Objects/complexobject.o] Error 1

..It fails at that point with no workaround.

Jeff

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Daniel L. Rall (dlr)
Date: 2005-12-19 19:42

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6606

I'm seeing this exact problem compiling Python 2.4.2 on
Solaris 10.  I've got the following gcc-related packages
installed:

SFWgcc34 - gcc itself, 3.4.2,REV=2005.01.05.17.49
SFWgcc34l - runtime libraries, 3.4.2,REV=2005.01.05.17.49
SUNWgccruntime - runtime libraries (also?),
11.10.0,REV=2005.01.08.05.16

$ find /usr/include/ -type f -print | xargs grep 'HUGE_VAL'
/usr/include/iso/math_c99.h:#undef      HUGE_VAL
/usr/include/iso/math_c99.h:#define     HUGE_VAL       
__builtin_huge_val

A quick look around didn't tell me what __builtin_huge_val
is defined to.  printf()'ing HUGE_VAL from a test.c proggie
shows the following:

e=0.000000e+00,
f=-68919433614220753064658744755535637868839108989653165135689455360011087079981720250557282791129967457227152890098055305015702110410402373120932263772837419450856325178283131823339151685653290667717623259822988338292772963105424367682944480240667451651976397620342290533347097094299868383451266824678670336.000000


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2004-08-23 11:00

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

Closing as threatened.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2004-08-07 21:43

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

Given that this has sat here for two months without
activity, I propose closing it in another fortnight. 
Assigning to me on the off-chance this makes me more likely
to remember :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Tim Peters (tim_one)
Date: 2004-06-10 15:08

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=31435

See comments about Py_HUGE_VAL in pyport.h.  Possible 
that this platform defines C's HUGE_VAL incorrectly, in which 
case config for this platfrom needs to set Py_HUGE_VAL to a 
correct expansion.

You could also try compiling complexobject.c without 
optimization.  In at least one prior case, the platform 
HUGE_VAL was correct, but expanded to such a hairy 
expression that it confused the platform C compiler when 
optimization was cranked up.

Finally, you didn't say which version of gcc and its libraries 
you're using.  It's possible that another version would work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=970334&group_id=5470