Failure to compile kernel drivers in CentOS 4.3 x64

Discussion in 'Parallels Workstation for Windows and Linux' started by arnaudsj, Apr 13, 2006.

  1. arnaudsj



    I have been trying to get Parallels 2.1 to run on my Opteron workstation which runs CentOS 4.3 (x64), but with no luck...

    Anybody out there that got parallels running on a 64 bit OS?

    Here is a copy of my comp error log after running parallel-config

    Thank you in advance for any pointers!


    checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
    checking whether build environment is sane... yes
    checking for gawk... gawk
    checking whether make sets ${MAKE}... yes
    checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles... no
    checking for gcc... gcc
    checking for C compiler default output... a.out
    checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    checking for suffix of executables... 
    checking for suffix of object files... o
    checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes
    checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes
    checking for style of include used by make... GNU
    checking dependency style of gcc... gcc3
    checking for g++... g++
    checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... yes
    checking whether g++ accepts -g... yes
    checking dependency style of g++... gcc3
    checking whether make sets ${MAKE}... (cached) yes
    checking build system type... x86_64-unknown-linux
    checking host system type... x86_64-unknown-linux
    checking for ld used by GCC... /usr/bin/ld
    checking if the linker (/usr/bin/ld) is GNU ld... yes
    checking for /usr/bin/ld option to reload object files... -r
    checking for BSD-compatible nm... /usr/bin/nm -B
    checking whether ln -s works... yes
    checking how to recognise dependant libraries... pass_all
    checking command to parse /usr/bin/nm -B output... ok
    checking how to run the C preprocessor... gcc -E
    checking for ANSI C header files... yes
    checking for sys/types.h... yes
    checking for sys/stat.h... yes
    checking for stdlib.h... yes
    checking for string.h... yes
    checking for memory.h... yes
    checking for strings.h... yes
    checking for inttypes.h... yes
    checking for stdint.h... yes
    checking for unistd.h... yes
    checking dlfcn.h usability... yes
    checking dlfcn.h presence... yes
    checking for dlfcn.h... yes
    checking for ranlib... ranlib
    checking for strip... strip
    checking for objdir... .libs
    checking for gcc option to produce PIC... -fPIC
    checking if gcc PIC flag -fPIC works... yes
    checking if gcc static flag -static works... yes
    checking if gcc supports -c -o file.o... yes
    checking if gcc supports -c -o file.lo... yes
    checking if gcc supports -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions... yes
    checking whether the linker (/usr/bin/ld) supports shared libraries... yes
    checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
    checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes
    checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux
    checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes
    checking whether to build shared libraries... yes
    checking whether to build static libraries... yes
    checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
    creating libtool
    checking for gcc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    checking for inline... inline
    checking Check for primary OS type... Linux
    checking Linux kernel version... 2.6.x
    checking kernel sources... ok (/lib/modules/2.6.9-34.106.unsupportedsmp/build)
    checking abnormal 2.4.20 remap_page_range... remap_page_range need vma struct
    checking freezing kthreads patch... no
    checking scheduling problems... schedule has sleep calculations
    checking mmu_cr4_features address... cat: /proc/ksyms: No such file or directory
    checking for x86 platform... configure: error: x86 platform is not supported
  2. constant


    Taking a little over a minute to flip over to the list of supported host operating systems to check. I confirm that there is no 64 bit operating system supported, and CentOS is not supported either.
  3. Andrew @ Parallels

    Andrew @ Parallels Parallels Developers

    1. 32-bit CentOS is not supported officially, but surely working with Parallels Workstation 2.1.
    2. 64-bit primary OSes are not supported in current version but will be supported in next version.
  4. arnaudsj


    Thank you for the response. Looking forward to the new 64 bit edition. Until then I guess I'll be using VMWARE...
  5. Baltazar


    Are you referring to 2.2 or 3.0 as next version?
  6. tgrogan


    I would guess 3.0 since 64bit is a giant step - not a baby step. ;>)
  7. Baltazar


    You never know :)

    I hope they have time to focus on the Win & Linux version too now that the OS X versions getting frequently updated with new betas, or if we have to wait until that version becomes final to see something new in the windows version.
  8. tgrogan


    Judging from all of the 'requests' - it's going to be a long time before Parallels's focus returns to the 95% world. Maybe we should fill up all of the inappropriate forums with whiny posts like they do. Too bad it works so well that I can't think of too much to complain about. I bought VMware for my 64bit production machine before Parallels was on the market, but love Parallels on my slower 32bit machine.
  9. brettw


    Yes indeed they need to polish off the OS X semi transparent dashboard widget prior to looking at Win/Linux 64 bit. At least they have the priorities straight.
  10. tgrogan


    How pathetic, don't you have a life? Stick to your meaningless diatrabs on your own forums - all of the rest of them but this one since you Mac users can't read forum descriptions! If appearance is your only concern, maybe you should subscribe to a few fashion forums - they probably would suit your tastes better. You're just envious because it will probably take the Mac 10 years to get to 64bit capability judging from their insistence on using an obsolete processor long after it's time. But then Mac users are more focused on their pretty icons than functionality and capability that is beyond their immediate experience.
  11. brettw


    Hmmm ... I guess all those 64 bit G5 machines with OS X that have been sold by Apple over the past few years really don't meet your criteria as they're coupled with a pretty GUI and a fantastic OS underneath ? Or perhaps since they've had multi-core CPUs for years it really doesn't count either ?

    I must admit you really do excel when it comes to demonstrable ignorance! I'll give you an A+ for that.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2006

Share This Page