Created on 2010-07-06 15:17 by redcomet, last changed 2011-03-28 16:12 by pitrou. This issue is now closed.
| Messages (8) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg109396 - (view) | Author: Charles Solar (redcomet) | Date: 2010-07-06 15:17 | |
On solaris, if you build a 64 bit python and use it to build an extension, it will not properly link the module. Apparently solaris requires the -m64 flag in the linker as well as the compile steps. Python distutils successfully compiles all the object files using -m64, but it fails to link with -m64 causing the entire build to fail if the extension needs a 64 bit library dependency ( will get 'incompatible library' errors from the linker ). To reproduce: build python with CFLAGS="-m64 -O3" LDFLAGS="-m64" build a C extension that depends on a 64 bit library (python setup.py install) I assume that it would work if the C extension does not need a specific 64 bit library as the linker will not go and look for the wrong version of file. So its a very uncommon but annoying bug. > ld --version GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.20.1.20100303 Copyright 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 or (at your option) a later version. This program has absolutely no warranty. |
|||
| msg116255 - (view) | Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) *  |
Date: 2010-09-12 23:56 | |
Thank you for the report. Do you want to work on a patch? The usual process is that someone makes a patch for the active version (branch named py3k, the future 3.2), then the committer backports to stable versions (3.1 and 2.7) and forward-ports to distutils2. See also guidelines at http://www.python.org/dev/patches/ |
|||
| msg116306 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2010-09-13 14:05 | |
Can you try using CC="cc -m64" OPT="-O3" instead? (replace "cc" with the proper compiler name, of course) |
|||
| msg116310 - (view) | Author: Charles Solar (redcomet) | Date: 2010-09-13 14:46 | |
I just recompiled using your suggested flags and it is now properly linking my extensions. I guess using CFLAGS and LDFLAGS was causing the problem. Is specifying CC the recommended way to build 64 bit python? If so when I guess this issue is not really an issue at all. |
|||
| msg116311 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2010-09-13 14:57 | |
> Is specifying CC the recommended way to build 64 bit python? Currently, yes. LDFLAGS is supposed to work, but it doesn't (open bug: #9437). |
|||
| msg131597 - (view) | Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2011-03-21 01:20 | |
Charles, can you still reproduce your bug now that #9437 has been fixed? |
|||
| msg132403 - (view) | Author: Charles Solar (redcomet) | Date: 2011-03-28 16:11 | |
Hello again, I got a copy of the latest python from the 2.7 branch, recompiled with CFLAGS="-m64 -O3" and LDFLAGS="-m64" and my extension compiled just fine. So I can verify this bug fixed |
|||
| msg132404 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2011-03-28 16:12 | |
Thanks for checking. Closing as fixed. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-03-28 16:12:11 | pitrou | set | status: open -> closed resolution: fixed messages: + msg132404 |
| 2011-03-28 16:11:26 | redcomet | set | messages: + msg132403 |
| 2011-03-21 01:20:03 | eric.araujo | set | nosy:
pitrou, tarek, eric.araujo, redcomet messages: + msg131597 |
| 2010-09-29 23:44:02 | eric.araujo | set | versions: + 3rd party |
| 2010-09-13 14:57:09 | pitrou | set | messages: + msg116311 |
| 2010-09-13 14:46:49 | redcomet | set | messages: + msg116310 |
| 2010-09-13 14:05:19 | pitrou | set | nosy:
+ pitrou messages: + msg116306 |
| 2010-09-12 23:56:08 | eric.araujo | set | nosy:
+ eric.araujo messages: + msg116255 versions: + Python 3.1, Python 3.2 |
| 2010-07-06 15:17:11 | redcomet | create | |