This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Matt, >Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:20:35 -0400 (EDT) >From: <address@hidden> >Organization: MESO, Inc. >To: <address@hidden> >Subject: Re: 20040630: netcdf-3.5.1 on Solaris x86 >Keywords: 200406181713.i5IHDnWb026226 The above message contained the following: > Sorry about that, I tried to put both streams in there but I'm not too > familiar with Solaris and anytime I tried to use the command I am used to > (2>&1) I got an "ambiguous output redirect error". That will work with a standard user-shell. You're probably using a non-standard shell (e.g., csh(1)). > The attached configure.log has everything included in it though. > > The '-tp p6' option has to do with the fortran compiler. They are running > on a pentium 4, but the Solaris OS can only handle/interpret up to pentium > 3 commands/executables (or so I am told). So that flag tells the compiler > to generate a pent 3 exec. That is why I am wondering if there needs to > be a similar flag for the C compiler. My manual page for the pgf90 compiler indicates that "-tp p6" is for Pentium Pro/II processors. The option "-tp px", however, should "work on any x86-compatible processor". You might try that instead. This point is moot, however, since we're still struggling with the C interface. > uname -a: > SunOS acmes3 5.8 Generic_108529-23 i86pc i386 i86pc > > /usr/local/bin/gcc -v: > Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i386-pc-solaris2.8/3.1/specs > Configured with: ../configure --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as > --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --disable-nls > Thread model: posix > gcc version 3.1 Your O/S is older and your gcc(1) is newer than ours, so I can't duplicate your problem. However, we've never had to use a CPU-dependent option when compiling with gcc(1). The file "configure.log" that you sent didn't indicate any problems. > Obviously this is a problem with something on their system and not with > netCDF, and I am sure it will end up being a stupid mistake that should be > glaringly apparenty on my part. Thanks for the continued patience. I'm afraid I've run out of ideas. Good luck. Regards, Steve Emmerson