Re: CVS Build problem (what.m missing?)

[John Swensen]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 31-Oct-2007, Fredrik Lingvall wrote:
>
> | John Swensen wrote:
> | > I also have this problem on OSX using the CVS as of 5:18PM EST 
> | > 10/31/2007.  My configure line is as follows:
> | >
> | > ./configure CC=gcc-4 CXX=g++-4 F77=gfortran CPPFLAGS=-I/sw/include 
> | > LDFLAGS=-L/sw/lib --prefix=/sw/opt/octave/cvs_2.9_20071007
> | >
> | > The config.log file indicates it failed at:
> | > configure:15915: checking BLAS library calling convention compatibility
> | > configure:15958: result: no
> | >
> | > Reading through your email chain, I wasn't sure whether a solution had 
> | > been reached, other than to cut out the test code so it always 
> | > succeeds, but is this going to cause problems when compiling/running?
> | >
> | > I tried to compile the conftest code by hand, but if I compile/link it 
> | > with:
> | > gfortran conftest.f -c -g3
> | > gfortran conftest.o -o conftest  -Wl,-framework -Wl,vecLib
> | > and then try to run it, I get a "Illegal instruction" error.  I ran it 
> | > in gdb and get further information concerning where the error occurred:
> | > Program received signal EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION, Illegal instruction/operand.
> | > 0x8fe12f94 in __dyld_stub_binding_helper_interface ()
> | >
> | > John Swensen
> | 
> | It looks like you have a different problem. When I build conftest.f 
> | manually, similar to how you did  it above,
> | I have no problem. Inside the configure script, however,  the ./conftest 
> | binary don't print anything. It should be
> | succeeded or failed but I get nothing.
>
> Have you tried editing the configure script to change the lines
>
>   LIBS="$XLIBS"
>   case "`./conftest$ac_exeext`" in
>     *succeeded*)
>
> to
>
>   LIBS="$XLIBS"
>   ./conftest$ac_exeext
>   case "`./conftest$ac_exeext`" in
>     *succeeded*)
>
> ?  If you do this, what happens when the program is run outside of the
> "``" quoting in the case statement?
>
> Again, I would welcome patches that improve this test.
>
> jwe
>
>   
OK...this may be one of the strangest result I have ever seen.  In the 
conftest.f file generated for the BLAS calling convention test, there 
are the following lines:
10 continue
     retval = zdotu (n, zx, incx, zy, incy)
Now, since I couldn't seem to get meaningful information from GDB, I 
decided to use the time tested debug practice of littering the file with 
print statements to see how far along it was getting.  After messing 
around a little, I discovered that if I put a print statement between 
the two lines mentioned above, namely:
10 continue
     print *, ''
     retval = zdotu (n, zx, incx, zy, incy)
that the illegal instruction error went away and it printed out:
<empty line>
succeeded

I have never really programmed in fortran, but this seems like some sort 
of compiler bug.

John Swensen