[R] Version 1.5.1 failing make check.

[Prof Brian Ripley]

On Solaris 7/8 with gcc 3.1 or later and a 64-bit kernel you need to
compile arithmetic.c without optimization.

It's a compiler bug.  There is a workaround in 1.6.0.  It does not occur
with a 32-bit kernel, nor with SunPro cc, nor with gcc 3.0.4.



On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Thomas Lumley wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> <snip> make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `check'
> >
> > Amongst other things:
> >
> > 	(1) in tests/Examples/base-Ex.Rout.fail we find
> >
> > 		Error: !is.nan(var(1)) is not TRUE
> >
> <snip>
> > 	I checked that in R version 1.4.1, which is currently running
> > 	on our system, these give TRUE, in agreement with
> > 	arith-true.Rout.save.  Likewise
> >
> > 		!is.nan(var(1))
> >
> > 	gives TRUE, as it apparently should, under 1.4.1.
> >
> > 	(So the problem would seem --- ??? --- to be with the new
> > 	version rather than with our system.)
>
> Well, an interaction between them. Certainly make check works on a lot of
> systems with R 1.5.1.  It wouldn't get released otherwise.
>
>
> > 	There are a bunch of other errors as well.
> >
> > Should I just ignore the fact that ``make check'' fails, and go ahead
> > and install 1.5.1?
>
> No, that would be a really bad idea.
>
> >			 (I ***really*** don't like the idea of doing
> > this!)  If not what, if anything, can I do to make it not fail?
> >
> > Version information (when I fire up the new, but not installed,
> > version 1.5.1, by invoking bin/R:
> >
> > platform sparc-sun-solaris2.7
> > arch     sparc
> > os       solaris2.7
>
> <snip>
> > P. S.  I ***think*** that version 1.5.1 was made with a different
> > gcc than was 1.4.1.  Could this be the problem?  And if so, what
> > do I do about it?
>
> Looking at the forthcoming 1.6.0 I see that
>    o   Workaround for optimization bugs on gcc 3.1/2 on 32-bit Solaris.
> is listed in NEWS, so it might be worth either
>
> a) reducing the optimisation level by editing CFLAGS in config.site
> or
> b) trying the pre1.6.0 code to see if the problem has gone away.
>
>
> 	-thomas
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
> Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
> (in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
> _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
>

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._