Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
#24550 closed defect (fixed)
py25-numpy +no_atlas does not build on x86_64
Reported by: | jdswinbank (John Swinbank) | Owned by: | skymoo (Adam Mercer) |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | 1.8.2 |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
Port: | py25-numpy py26-numpy atlas |
Attachments (1)
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 15 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to ram@… |
---|---|
Port: | py25-numpy py26-numpy atlas added |
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by skymoo (Adam Mercer)
Status: | new → assigned |
---|
comment:3 Changed 15 years ago by skymoo (Adam Mercer)
comment:4 Changed 15 years ago by jdswinbank (John Swinbank)
I see this:
creating build/temp.macosx-10.6-x86_64-2.5/numpy/core/blasdot compile options: '-DNO_ATLAS_INFO=3 -Inumpy/core/blasdot -Inumpy/core/include -Ibuild/src.macosx-10.6-x86_64-2.5/numpy/core/inc extra options: '-faltivec -I/System/Library/Frameworks/vecLib.framework/Headers' gcc-mp-4.3: numpy/core/blasdot/_dotblas.c cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-faltivec" cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-faltivec" error: Command "/opt/local/bin/gcc-mp-4.3 -fno-strict-aliasing -mno-fused-madd -fno-common -dynamic -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wa Error: Status 1 encountered during processing. Before reporting a bug, first run the command again with the -d flag to get complete output
I'll attach a complete log.
Changed 15 years ago by jdswinbank (John Swinbank)
Attachment: | py25-numpy.log added |
---|
Log of build failure
comment:5 follow-up: 6 Changed 15 years ago by skymoo (Adam Mercer)
comment:6 Changed 15 years ago by jdswinbank (John Swinbank)
Yup, that fixes the issue.
Many thanks for your help!
comment:7 Changed 15 years ago by skymoo (Adam Mercer)
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Great, only wish I understood why the problem was occurring selectively...
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I can't reproduce this problem on 64bit SL:
do you get exactly the same failure as in #23240?