Mailing List Archive

> However, I screwed up and downgraded gcc from 2.95.1 to 2.8.1, which left
> version 2.95.1 of gcc in /usr/ucb/cc, and version 2.8.1 in
> /usr/local/bin/gcc. Removing the errant binary from /usr/ucb allowed the
> compile to proceed to completion.

Mea cupla.

Looks like I spoke too soon. Further experimentation shows the same error.
Only thing I can figure was that I was compiling version 1.2.2 (always
compiled fine), which I was comparing to p1 at the time, and never noticed
it.

Back to square one, or perhaps not... I tried copying the Makefile generated
by the v1.2.2 distribution into p1, after modifying LDFLAGS and LIBOBJS, and
lo, it compiles! Looks like it runs too, so far...

Perhaps more problems have snuck into configure?


-David Hesprich

On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, David G. Hesprich wrote:

> Back to square one, or perhaps not... I tried copying the Makefile
> generated by the v1.2.2 distribution into p1, after modifying
> LDFLAGS and LIBOBJS, and lo, it compiles! Looks like it runs too, so
> far...

Can you run diff on your modified Makefile and the one that configure
produces?

-d

--
| "Bombay is 250ms from New York in the new world order" - Alan Cox
| Damien Miller - http://www.mindrot.org/
| Email: djm@mindrot.org (home) -or- djm@ibs.com.au (work)

On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, David G. Hesprich wrote:

> > However, I screwed up and downgraded gcc from 2.95.1 to 2.8.1, which left
> > version 2.95.1 of gcc in /usr/ucb/cc, and version 2.8.1 in
> > /usr/local/bin/gcc. Removing the errant binary from /usr/ucb allowed the
> > compile to proceed to completion.
>
> Mea cupla.
>
> Looks like I spoke too soon. Further experimentation shows the same error.
> Only thing I can figure was that I was compiling version 1.2.2 (always
> compiled fine), which I was comparing to p1 at the time, and never noticed
> it.

Are you sure you're also not getting any of the library files from
2.95.1? Also, apparently if you build on 2.8.1, your libraries
should be build by the same compiler (This is a suggestion I got
from the gcc list when I couldn't get a shared library thing working...)
You may want to make sure everything from 2.95.1 is uninstalled.

I'm running gcc-2.95.2 on Solaris 7 x86 and it builds just fine. I
suspect you've probably roached something. I've also got gcc-2.8.1
in another tree, but it would be very hard for configure to guess where
it was.

Ben

On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Ben Taylor wrote:

> Are you sure you're also not getting any of the library files from
> 2.95.1? Also, apparently if you build on 2.8.1, your libraries
> should be build by the same compiler (This is a suggestion I got
> from the gcc list when I couldn't get a shared library thing working...)
> You may want to make sure everything from 2.95.1 is uninstalled.

I had to back down from 2.95.2 because a particular package I was working
with had a known problem with 2.95.x, .2 inclusive. I went back, and with
the exception of the /usr/ucb/cc being left around I previously, there
wasn't anything left around fromany other version of gcc. At least, that's
what I could determine to the best of my ability.

I got both gcc 2.8.1 and libstdc++ 2.8.1.1 as packages from
sunfreeware. The installation has worked pretty good so far (I've been
able to compile and install all sorts of things), so I don't think there's
a massive error in there.

I'm open to suggestions, of course.



-David Hesprich