Re: [expert] GCC
stdio.h should be included with every c/c++ compiler. It is a basic include file for the c language Tim James Sparenberg wrote: On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 06:23, Jarmo wrote: On Tuesday 18 November 2003 16:01, Jarmo wrote: The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors 2.8.0 compiled...Yes I know there is rpm...But I have so exotic mb... Asrock K7S8X with sis cipset,exept sensors are winbonds... No worry anymore.Downloaded lm-sensors 2.8.1 as well as i2c-2.8.1 and got them working... Again sorry for bothering... Jarmo No bother... btw I've got the stdio.h from package gcc-3.2.2 hmmm curiouser and curiouser. James __ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- - Timothy R. Brown Webmaster The Daily Star 102 Chestnut St. Oneonta, NY 13820 Phone: (607)441-7242 Fax: (607)432-5847 - http://www.thedailystar.com http://www.coopercrier.com http://www.thecollegianonline.com http://www.cityofthehills.com http://www.theheartlandofnewyork.com - Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote: Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1? In 9.1 it was 3.3.2. It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2. -- Stew Benedict Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote: Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1? In 9.1 it was 3.3.2. It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2. Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD BAD English... In 9.1 it is 3.3.2 In 9.2 it is 3.3.1 Downgraded? Jarmo Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote: On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote: Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1? In 9.1 it was 3.3.2. It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2. Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD BAD English... In 9.1 it is 3.3.2 In 9.2 it is 3.3.1 Downgraded? I understand your English fine, just don't agree with your statement: [EMAIL PROTECTED] stew]$ cat /etc/mandrake-release Mandrake Linux release 9.1 (Bamboo) for ppc [EMAIL PROTECTED] stew]$ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.2.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2.2-3mdk) It's PPC, but the versions are the same as x86. -- Stew Benedict Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
From: Jarmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote: Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1? In 9.1 it was 3.3.2. It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2. Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD BAD English... In 9.1 it is 3.3.2 In 9.2 it is 3.3.1 Downgraded? Nope. If you had a 3.3.2 package in 9.1 you got it somwhere else... with a fake version number I might add, as according gcc.gnu.org: GCC 3.3.2 (released 2003-10-17) and looking at a ftp site near you: ftp://ftp.song.fi/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/ you will see: 03/03/2003 12:00 4,119,793 gcc-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00 1,988,909 gcc-c++-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00 37,146 gcc-colorgcc-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00147,356 gcc-cpp-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00966,657 gcc-doc-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00 4,403,079 gcc-doc-pdf-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00 1,589,109 gcc-g77-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00 7,194,031 gcc-gnat-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 01/08/2003 12:00 2,324,573 gcc-gpc-2.95.3-5mdk.i586.rpm 01/08/2003 12:00457,415 gcc-gpc-devel-2.95.3-5mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00 1,446,712 gcc-java-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00 1,327,557 gcc-objc-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm 03/03/2003 12:00137,731 gcj-tools-3.2.2-3mdk.i586.rpm so it's definately 3.2.2 in 9.1 -- Regards Thomas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:39, Thomas Backlund wrote: so it's definately 3.2.2 SORRY GUYS.. Too much reading...Have to cut whole forrest to see trees...;-) Or wash my glasses Damn me. The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors 2.8.0 compiled...Yes I know there is rpm...But I have so exotic mb... Asrock K7S8X with sis cipset,exept sensors are winbonds... I get: [EMAIL PROTECTED] lm_sensors-2.8.0]# make make: *** No rule to make target `/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/3.2.2/include/stdio.h', needed by `prog/detect/dmidecode.rd'. Stop. [EMAIL PROTECTED] lm_sensors-2.8.0]# And I should have seen there 3.2.2 But anyway,there is not stdio.h in 3.3.1/include either Jarmo Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 16:01, Jarmo wrote: The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors 2.8.0 compiled...Yes I know there is rpm...But I have so exotic mb... Asrock K7S8X with sis cipset,exept sensors are winbonds... No worry anymore.Downloaded lm-sensors 2.8.1 as well as i2c-2.8.1 and got them working... Again sorry for bothering... Jarmo Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 05:10, Jarmo wrote: On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:41, Stew Benedict wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jarmo wrote: Anybody know reasom,why gcc-3.3.2 was downgraded in 9.2 into 3.3.1? In 9.1 it was 3.3.2. It wasn't. 9.1 has 3.2.2. Sorry...Missunderstanding...My BAD BAD English... In 9.1 it is 3.3.2 In 9.2 it is 3.3.1 Downgraded? Jarmo Jarmo, My 9.1 is at 3.2.2 dunno where you got the upgrade but the stock is 3.2.2 James __ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 06:23, Jarmo wrote: On Tuesday 18 November 2003 16:01, Jarmo wrote: The point why I started to look,was that I can't get lm-sensors 2.8.0 compiled...Yes I know there is rpm...But I have so exotic mb... Asrock K7S8X with sis cipset,exept sensors are winbonds... No worry anymore.Downloaded lm-sensors 2.8.1 as well as i2c-2.8.1 and got them working... Again sorry for bothering... Jarmo No bother... btw I've got the stdio.h from package gcc-3.2.2 hmmm curiouser and curiouser. James __ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc that can't build executables?
Nope cpp is installed...(not the first cpp app but thanks) Went to anjuta's site... found out that a newer version is out grabbed it and the error went away... only to be replaced by the error that it can't find g++... *sigh* James On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 00:08, Brian Parish wrote: On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 18:30, James Sparenberg wrote: I've just hit an error for the first time ever with my 8.2 box. I've compiled a number of applications on this box and now all the sudden while trying to compile ajunta it tells me that it find gcc but that gcc can't compile executables and configure errors out. Running MDK 8.2 with all updates current. and at the moment at an extreme loss as to what the heck just happened. James Maybe you have found a c++ app for the first time and don't have cpp installed? Brian Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc that can't build executables?
Nailed it... had to re-install rpms for gcc and poof it re-appeared in working form (yes I could manually find g++ but it wasn't working right for reasons beyond me.) So anjunta 1.0.0 built. Oh and my original problem was with 0.9.99 ... that one still gives the same error. I'm putting it down to a bad build on their part and moving one thanks all for the help. James On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 02:49, Praedor Atrebates wrote: Can YOU find g++? If so, it may be using a name other than the source is looking for and require a symlink or Makefile addition/alteration on your part. It may be looking for g++ when you have g++-2.9.6 (or some such). Same thing has happened to me with regards to cpp, by the way. I had apps complaining about there being no cpp (but there was). All I did was create a symlink that the app was looking for pointing at my cpp. Did you install all the relevant gcc packages? On Monday 25 November 2002 04:07 am, James Sparenberg wrote: Nope cpp is installed...(not the first cpp app but thanks) Went to anjuta's site... found out that a newer version is out grabbed it and the error went away... only to be replaced by the error that it can't find g++... *sigh* James On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 00:08, Brian Parish wrote: On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 18:30, James Sparenberg wrote: I've just hit an error for the first time ever with my 8.2 box. I've compiled a number of applications on this box and now all the sudden while trying to compile ajunta it tells me that it find gcc but that gcc can't compile executables and configure errors out. [...] Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc-3.2 optimization problem
David Relson wrote on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 05:57:35PM -0400 : Greetings, I have a small C program that shows -O1 and -O2 optimizations problems, I believe. What's the proper channel for reporting the problem? Go directly to the gcc people: http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html Blue skies... Todd -- ...and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, those who attempt to poison and destroy my binaries, and you will know my name is root, when I lay my vengeance upon thee. Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.0-0.3mdk Kernel 2.4.19-12mdk msg57967/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [expert] gcc-3.2 optimization problem
At 06:53 PM 9/23/02, Todd Lyons wrote: David Relson wrote on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 05:57:35PM -0400 : Greetings, I have a small C program that shows -O1 and -O2 optimizations problems, I believe. What's the proper channel for reporting the problem? Go directly to the gcc people: http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html Todd, Thanks. Two code generation reports filed. prog1.c runs properly with -O0, but not -O1. prog2.c (a slight variation of prog1.c) runs properly with -O1, but not -O2. Fun stuff! David Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc-3.2 optimization problem
David Relson wrote on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 09:24:36PM -0400 : At 06:53 PM 9/23/02, Todd Lyons wrote: I have a small C program that shows -O1 and -O2 optimizations problems, I Thanks. Two code generation reports filed. prog1.c runs properly with -O0, but not -O1. prog2.c (a slight variation of prog1.c) runs properly with -O1, but not -O2. Can you email them to me directly? I would like to see what it is that it is doing. Blue skies... Todd -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com Easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible. --Larry Wall Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.0-0.3mdk Kernel 2.4.19-12mdk msg57985/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [expert] gcc and nvidia_kernel
On Fri, 31 May 2002 18:05:07 -0700 Robby Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $ IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1 rpm --rebuild NVIDIA_kernel-1.0-2960.src.rpm That did the trick. Thanks much. Charles Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc and nvidia_kernel
Just add to the makefile: IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1 it may be right after KERNDIR =... Wooky Charles A Edwards wrote: Because of versions I need to pass the Ignore_CC_MISMATCH arg to build the nvidia_kernel. So far I have had no luck. Could some kind soul enlighten me as to how to pass that specific arg. Thanks Charles Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- -- shinjiteiru shinjirareru, korekara aruku kono michi wo! kimi ga iru yo, boku ga iru yo sore ijou nani mo iranai. umareta imi ,sagasu yori mo ima ikiteru koto kanjite, kotae yori mo, daiji na mono hitotsu hitotsu mitsuketeiku... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc and nvidia_kernel
Because of versions I need to pass the Ignore_CC_MISMATCH arg to build the nvidia_kernel. So far I have had no luck. Could some kind soul enlighten me as to how to pass that specific arg. I'm currently having a similar troubles, does your problem also stem from a cooker kernel upgrade by rpm? Ross - This mail sent through UK Online webmail Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc and nvidia_kernel
On Fri, 31 May 2002 23:23:31 +0100 (BST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm currently having a similar troubles, does your problem also stem from a cooker kernel upgrade by rpm? Yep. Kernel-2418-18 and gcc-3.1.1 Luckily I had another system on which I updated only the kernel and was able to build the drivers on it and then install same on this system. I still would like to know how to pass that command. I tried modifying both the rpm spec and the make file in numerous ways but every time it would always error out. Charles Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc and nvidia_kernel
Yep. Kernel-2418-18 and gcc-3.1.1 Luckily I had another system on which I updated only the kernel and was able to build the drivers on it and then install same on this system. I still would like to know how to pass that command. I tried modifying both the rpm spec and the make file in numerous ways but every time it would always error out. Same for me but I think I'm into even deeper gcc troubles now. Am going to have to step back a couple of kernel versions to fix it I think, if I can get hold of them. Sorry but I can't offer any help with passing the Ignore_CC_MISMATCH comamnd, I've broken enough for one day I think. Good Luck Ross - This mail sent through UK Online webmail Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc and nvidia_kernel
On Friday 31 May 2002 06:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still would like to know how to pass that command. Sorry but I can't offer any help with passing the Ignore_CC_MISMATCH comamnd, I've broken enough for one day I think. try something like: export Ignore_CC_Mismatch=1 -s Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc 3.0
Praedor, I haven't used it myself, but a friend of mine (one of the original members of 386 BSD development team at Berkley) has been trying it out. He said that for now anything built with it isn't compatible with programs compiled with earlier versions of gcc. In short he told me it's going to draw a line in the sand that separtes linux binaries into two incompatible worlds. (His original reaction was a groan, rolled eyes and a head shake) He told me it works. The binaries were fine, but a strong compatability issue. On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:44:12 -0700 Praedor Tempus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How is gcc 3.0 these days? Has its problems been corrected enough to make it a worthy compiler? praedor _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc 3.0
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 03:03:35 -0800 James [EMAIL PROTECTED] studiouisly spake these words to ponder: Praedor, I haven't used it myself, but a friend of mine (one of the original members of 386 BSD development team at Berkley) has been trying it out. He said that for now anything built with it isn't compatible with programs compiled with earlier versions of gcc. In short he told me it's going to draw a line in the sand that separtes linux binaries into two incompatible worlds. (His original reaction was a groan, rolled eyes and a head shake) He told me it works. The binaries were fine, but a strong compatability issue. If the compiler is causing those kinds of serious compatibility issues then why in the world was it released in such a state? that doesn't quite make much sense. the last thing the Linux community seems to need at the moment is something to segragate it's members from one another. is this something that Steve Balmer dreamed up? -- daRcmaTTeR windows = where do you want to go today Mac = go where you want, do what you want today MDK-linux = been there, done that, got the tee shirt, why do you ask? Registered Mandrake Linux User # 186492 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] gcc-2.96 vs gcc3.x
My advice, which is probably worth just about what you're paying for it, is to stick with 2.96. Probably for 99.9% of the programs you are likely to try it with, gcc 3.0 will be fine, and possibly better, than 2.96. But that 0.1% might be a real killer. 2.96 might not (perhaps) produce as efficient code as 3.0, but my experience is that at least the code always works. Code that makes heavy use of the C++ STL and exception handling sometimes spontaneously aborts under 3.0. I have, in fact, removed 3.0 from my LM 8.1 system. In six months maybe I'll try 3.x again, but I can't recommend it at the moment. Doc Evans On 3 Jan 02, at 14:10, Marc wrote: Hi, I am not a developer but reguralarly compile src.rpm packages on my Mandrake 8.1 system. I was wondering what the difference is between gcc-2.96 and gcc 3.0. Is it save to remove gcc-2.96 and install gcc3. Or is it saver to stick with the old gcc-2.96. Marc -- Phone: +1 303 494 0394 Mobile: +1 720 839 8462 Fax:+1 781 240 0527 -- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 3.0
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 23:36, you wrote: On Sat, 2001-11-24 at 19:28, Darwin Gottfried wrote: yep it's in the download version of 8.1 for sure. gcc 3.0.1. [Copy posted to the list instead of an individual] G. May I suggest to the listop that reply-to be changed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any messages posted via the list? Avoid gcc3 like the plague if you want qt2 apps to compile. As I have been lurking here since Mdk 7.0, I have noticed this go back and forth, the reason is some folks hit reply to all and some hit reply. if the listop changes it to what you suggest, 1) most messages wind up as multipule messages, 2) but at least more correct answers would be seen one the list. just my .02 cents worth (heck there goes my life savings) Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 3.0
On Sat, 2001-11-24 at 19:28, Darwin Gottfried wrote: yep it's in the download version of 8.1 for sure. gcc 3.0.1. [Copy posted to the list instead of an individual] G. May I suggest to the listop that reply-to be changed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any messages posted via the list? Avoid gcc3 like the plague if you want qt2 apps to compile. -- Brad Felmey Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 3.0
On Saturday 24 November 2001 18:20, you wrote: So sprach »Jose Luis Vazquez Gonzalez« am 2001-11-24 um 18:49:22 +0100 : Hi, Has someone upgraded to gcc 3.0.x? Yep. how? urpmi gcc3 Dunno if it's in 8.1, but it's for sure in cooker. yep it's in the download version of 8.1 for sure. gcc 3.0.1. Alexander Skwar Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 3.1
Both. gcc is 2.96, and there are optional gcc3 packages as well. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 2.96
Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by the gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro occupied the number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very different times and do not really resemble each other very much, yet the binaries are mostly compatible. It may be built from many patches out of the cvs tree, but it consistently produces reliable code. Most of what people see as a faw in it is that a lot of sloppy code written for 2.95 and earlier expected the compiler to load standard headers by default. 2.96 needs the explicit #include statements. Ok, the biggest problem i have with it is that trying to build a cross compiler using the gnu gcc 2.95.3 sources seems to have problems, would i be better to compile gcc/binutils using kgcc? (which i believe is egcs). Maybe most of the problems i have are due to sloppy code as you say, and therefore i would ask which libraries specificallly are no longer included as default. Oh, and are you saying that your numbering gcc as 2.96 has nothing to do with th gnu version numbering system? As i thought their 2.96 series were just 3.0 betas (in which case i am a little mixed up as i used to use a standard gnu version of 2.96). Thanks Tom Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 2.96
On Friday 24 August 2001 10:50, Tom Badran wrote: Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by the gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro occupied the number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very different times and do not really resemble each other very much, yet the binaries are mostly compatible. It may be built from many patches out of the cvs tree, but it consistently produces reliable code. Most of what people see as a faw in it is that a lot of sloppy code written for 2.95 and earlier expected the compiler to load standard headers by default. 2.96 needs the explicit #include statements. Ok, the biggest problem i have with it is that trying to build a cross compiler using the gnu gcc 2.95.3 sources seems to have problems, would i be better to compile gcc/binutils using kgcc? (which i believe is egcs). Maybe most of the problems i have are due to sloppy code as you say, and therefore i would ask which libraries specificallly are no longer included as default. Oh, and are you saying that your numbering gcc as 2.96 has nothing to do with th gnu version numbering system? As i thought their 2.96 series were just 3.0 betas (in which case i am a little mixed up as i used to use a standard gnu version of 2.96). The gcc team officially abandoned the number after RH issued it in their 7.0 release. We started using a pruning from the CVS tree sometime later (after others had fixed many of the bugs :-D ) and continued to add patches. I don't know what kgcc is, but I know most people have had trouble building our kernels with it. In fact, someone flamed us on this list because he had to do a make mrproper and because kgcc (which we never issued) built a kernel with an endbase address too big. He asked what EDBA was and I gave him a reference to the authority on it (a LILO manual) and he accused me of sending him on a treasure hunt. Basically no headers are included by default, and there are some other strictnesses, but the number of internal compiler error messages we have had are tiny. I believe three, all from packages we never saw. How we are expected to diagnose without seeing the input to the compiler is beyond me, but folks report the bug that way. Anyway, I hope this answers your question. This is basically a unique compiler and we will return to the mainstream compilers as soon as we have one that does as well. Civileme Thanks Tom Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name=message.footer Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Description: Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 2.96
Thanks for answering one question for me: why the current python source rpm from cooker wouldn't compile on Mandrake 7.2's gcc. I compiled gcc-2.96 source rpm on LM7.2, then recompiled it using 2.96, and now will hopefully be able to compile the latest python on that platform as well. -- Stephen On Friday 24 August 2001 07:00 pm, civileme wrote: I don't know what kgcc is, but I know most people have had trouble building our kernels with it. In fact, someone flamed us on this list because he had to do a make mrproper and because kgcc (which we never issued) built a kernel with an endbase address too big. He asked what EDBA was and I gave him a reference to the authority on it (a LILO manual) and he accused me of sending him on a treasure hunt. Basically no headers are included by default, and there are some other strictnesses, but the number of internal compiler error messages we have had are tiny. I believe three, all from packages we never saw. How we are expected to diagnose without seeing the input to the compiler is beyond me, but folks report the bug that way. Anyway, I hope this answers your question. This is basically a unique compiler and we will return to the mainstream compilers as soon as we have one that does as well. Civileme Thanks Tom Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 2.96
This is a multi-part message in MIME format... On Thursday 23 August 2001 19:01, Tom Badran wrote: Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have both gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has some issues that make it suitable to keep a 2.9 version of gcc about, i just wondered if it is possible to replace gcc 2.96 with gcc 2.95 in this version of mandrake, I just went with RedHat's solution on my mandrake system and installed kgcc. . --- |o_o | |:_/ | Michael Osten // \ \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (| | ) Reefedge Inc. /'\_ _/`\ \___)=(___/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] GCC 2.96
On Thursday 23 August 2001 19:01, Tom Badran wrote: Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have both gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has some issues that make it suitable to keep a 2.9 version of gcc about, i just wondered if it is possible to replace gcc 2.96 with gcc 2.95 in this version of mandrake, preferably without affecting version 3 at all. Ideally i would do this from the binary or source rpms from an older version of mandrake (i believe 7.2 was the last version to ship with gcc 2.95). Im sure there will be dependency errors, especially with the horrendous incorrect dependcy issues with mandrakes rpms, however, if i nodeped the install, would it not work, or does gcc need no other libraries to run? Also, as im downgrading, would i need to recompile glibc and other libraries if i wanted to compile programs that use them, or is the linking information compatible. Im sure some of these questions may sound stupid, but i really dont want to bugger about with installing a new mandrake version on both my pcs. Thanks Tom Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by the gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro occupied the number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very different times and do not really resemble each other very much, yet the binaries are mostly compatible. It may be built from many patches out of the cvs tree, but it consistently produces reliable code. Most of what people see as a faw in it is that a lot of sloppy code written for 2.95 and earlier expected the compiler to load standard headers by default. 2.96 needs the explicit #include statements. Our 2.96 has little to do with RH 2.96. It was chosen for one reason--You see we have an IA-64 version of our distro (still beta, but out there). It stuck because it was the first compiler we could wholly trust to produce good object code, even though it was strict and cranky. Perl and Python could not pass their regression tests with 2.95.3. I don't think you will see it in this distro again. We simply don't trust it fully. But if you want to do all of that downgrading as you call it, you should find all the source quite compatible, since 2.96 is stricter than 2.95. 3.0 we are still testing, obviously, and we will switch when we see another compiler producing code as solidly as 2.96. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] GCC 3.0 install failure
On 06-Aug-2001 Jesse Hepburn wrote: I'm trying to upgrade to GCC 3.0 (because 2.96 is buggy). Whenever I try to make it (using make --bootstrap) I get preprocessor errors and the make fails. Is this a known problem, or is it just me? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Jesse I suppose you got a problem with libstdc++ with a file called gthr.h. This is problem with sed and locale. (I can't remeber what it was excatly but the solution is to set LC_ALL=C and LC_COLLATE=C export LC_ALL=C export LC_COlLATE=C now you can do your make bootstrap. AFAIK gcc-3.0.1 should already have a fix for this Gregor PS: Please add information to you next post (describe the problem more closely). -- E-Mail: Gregor Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 07-Aug-2001 Time: 09:12:39 --
RE: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL
Pete and all, Hi! I've read the FAQ and several other articles to the extend that I come to an understanding that the result of using a GPL'ed software does not make it another GPL'ed software, rather it is up to you to give it the type of license that you wish. For example, say that STAROFFICE 5.2 is a GPL'ed software and use it StarDraw to draw up a mechanical drawing of something new. That drawing does not inherit the GPL nature of the StarOffice because it is just a result of using it or its component. In the case of my original question, using GCC to produce other programs (the result of using GCC) does not make the result a GPL as well. Unless, GCC source codes were used to produce other program such as another enhanced compiler that you can find GCC codes everywhere (in part of in full) in the new compiler, then the new compiler will be deemed a GPL as well. This is what I understand from the Contagious License explaination. As a summary, the result of using a GPL software is a up-to-you license whereas the modification (be it upgrading, degrading, enhancement, improvisation etc) of a GPL program/code inherits its license. Thanks all and have a nice day! Best Regards, Joe RLU# 186063 Reading is the essence of knowledge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 01:53 AM To: Shahrimi Johann Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL Joe, The Official GPL FAQ is here: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html There is an entry for specifically covering your question: Q: I use the C or C++ programming language, and I compile with GCC. Must I release software I write in the language under the same license as GCC? A: Use of GCC makes no requirements about the license of your program. Also witness the *BSD projects, who are mostly all BSD licensed (aka, the subvertible by proprietary interests license). They use gcc as their compiler. The effects of gcc being GPL licensed mean that if you make changes to it, you must release the source code of your changes to the people to whom you distrubte the changed gcc. GPL does not change the license of programs who want to use its code - it is just a prerequisite that the programs have a GPL-compatible license as a prerequisite for using the GPL'd code. So, someone violating the GPL gets asked to remove the GPL'd code, or comply w/ the GPL's terms (violator's choice). -pete On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Shahrimi Johann wrote: Hi all, just a question. GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes with libraries that will be used in the programs that are created using them. These resulting programs that we developed, do they fall under GPL/Open Source as well since GPL is otherwise known as Contagious License? This normally means that if one used codes that fall under GPL then the resulting programs are GPL as well. If one did not use any GPL codes other than GCC, does that programs/software became proprietary or open source? Thanks in advance for the answer. Best Regards, Joe RLU# 186063 Reading is the essence of knowledge
Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL
Hi! I thought I should chime in on this one, even though JoeLX seems to be happy. As I understand it, ALL of GCC3.0 is published under the GPL, which is viral. The GNU Lesser General Public License is one usually used for libraries, which is far less viral. However, GCC3.0 has a special exception for the GCC library. I haven't looked at what this is precisely, but I know that its intention is to allow the production of proprietary software with the compiler system. I cannot tell you what the distribution requirements for that library are, as I have not yet read the exception in the license. BTW M$, AFIK, does not use GPLed code in any of its operations. It uses BSD licensed code, which, by not having the contagious elements of the GPL, lets this sort of thing go on. I hope that this has cleared a couple of things up. But the short answer is AFIK you can distribute code made with GCC3.0 under any license that you feel like; although, if the libraries are under the LGPL as has been suggested (I can't find any reference to this, just an exception) then there are a few minor restrictions that you must be aware of. Regards, Nathan Callahan On Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 02:45 PM, JoeLX wrote: Thanks Tom Thanks Craig The reason for my question was because I saw some software, having developed using GCC, were distributed as proprietary and some are labeled as commercial. I guess these developers should give many thanks and appreciation to the developers of GCC and should contribute to Free Software cause... unlike MS Hotmail, Interix etc... use GPL but never admit it nor appreciate it, rather it chose to bash and bash and bash... Stupid people never learn. OK, thank again sirs! Have a good day! Best Regards, Joe RLU# 186063 Reading is the essence of knowledge - Cut Paste: Tom Badran [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]: Anything you create under gcc you are free to distribute under any terms you wish. The libraries are released under the lgpl which means you can dynamically (and possibly statically) link to them with no requirements on your part. Basically, unless you use anyhting more than libc and glibc you dont have to release your software under the gpl -- Imperial College, Department Of Computing email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 020 785 22277 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 07:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL Shahrimi Johann wrote: Hi all, just a question. GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes with libraries that will be used in the programs that are created using them. I'm no expert on the GPL, but, as I understand it, it only becomes viral when you use source from another GPL'd program. It doesn't much matter if you compile it with gcc, cc or any other compiler. Libraries are a little different, and fall under the LGPL, and I'm not very familiar with that at all. Just my .02. -- Craig Sprout Network Administrator Crown Parts and Machine, Inc. http://www.crownpartsandmachine.com/
Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL
Nathan Callahan wrote: BTW M$, AFIK, does not use GPLed code in any of its operations. It uses BSD licensed code, which, by not having the contagious elements of the GPL, lets this sort of thing go on. They DO use lots of GPL code... albeit to try to move *nix users to NT... http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp while now trying to shut the door on GPL s/w... http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm Discussion at http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW I hope that this has cleared a couple of things up. But the short answer is AFIK you can distribute code made with GCC3.0 under any ^^^ license that you feel like; although, if the libraries are under the LGPL as has been suggested (I can't find any reference to this, just an exception) then there are a few minor restrictions that you must be aware of. s/any/any (except some M$)/ Regards, Nathan Callahan Pierre
Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL
Shahrimi Johann wrote: Hi all, just a question. GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes with libraries that will be used in the programs that are created using them. I'm no expert on the GPL, but, as I understand it, it only becomes viral when you use source from another GPL'd program. It doesn't much matter if you compile it with gcc, cc or any other compiler. Libraries are a little different, and fall under the LGPL, and I'm not very familiar with that at all. Just my .02. -- Craig Sprout Network Administrator Crown Parts and Machine, Inc. http://www.crownpartsandmachine.com/
RE: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL
Thanks Tom Thanks Craig The reason for my question was because I saw some software, having developed using GCC, were distributed as proprietary and some are labeled as commercial. I guess these developers should give many thanks and appreciation to the developers of GCC and should contribute to Free Software cause... unlike MS Hotmail, Interix etc... use GPL but never admit it nor appreciate it, rather it chose to bash and bash and bash... Stupid people never learn. OK, thank again sirs! Have a good day! Best Regards, Joe RLU# 186063 Reading is the essence of knowledge - Cut Paste: Tom Badran [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]: Anything you create under gcc you are free to distribute under any terms you wish. The libraries are released under the lgpl which means you can dynamically (and possibly statically) link to them with no requirements on your part. Basically, unless you use anyhting more than libc and glibc you dont have to release your software under the gpl -- Imperial College, Department Of Computing email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 020 785 22277 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 07:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] GCC 3.0 - Question on GPL Shahrimi Johann wrote: Hi all, just a question. GCC is a GPL, open source software and it comes with libraries that will be used in the programs that are created using them. I'm no expert on the GPL, but, as I understand it, it only becomes viral when you use source from another GPL'd program. It doesn't much matter if you compile it with gcc, cc or any other compiler. Libraries are a little different, and fall under the LGPL, and I'm not very familiar with that at all. Just my .02. -- Craig Sprout Network Administrator Crown Parts and Machine, Inc. http://www.crownpartsandmachine.com/
Re: [expert] gcc-2.96 problem...
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote: Hi, I got error when trying to compile the kernel using gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead. 2.91.66 is recommended for kernel building.
Re: [expert] gcc-2.96 problem...
On Thursday 07 June 2001 12:52, Steve Kieu wrote: Hi, I got error when trying to compile the kernel using gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead. Thank in advance ! = S.KIEU This is unsurprising. 2.96 is much stricter. You cannot assume standard headers will be loaded by default. Your C code really has to be much closer to specificatons. We had a reason for abandoning 2.95.3 and making essentially our own compiler from the gcc 3.0 development tree, and giving it the (officially unused) 2.96 label. Perl and Python compiled with it pass all of their regression tests, and the other code made with it can be inspected for bugs directly rather than worrying if we have stumbled over another compiler bug. In other words, after several months of tests, a technical decision was made. You are free to use 2.95.3, of course. Make sure you have the glibc2.1 compatibility lib loaded, and realize that your code probably won't compile under gcc 3.0 (particularly c++ code). Civileme ___ __ http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger - Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
Re: [expert] gcc in 7.2 is broken - -fomit-frame-pointer
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Brian J. Murrell wrote: Hello experts. It would seem that gcc (2.95.2-12mdk) in 7.2 is broken if you use -fomit-frame-pointers. Here is a URL to a message which might help explain: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/2001-q1/msg00225.html [snip] Thanks for pointing that out Brian ... I'd been noticing that some code based on OpenSSL had been failing recently, and it was only when OpenSSL was recompiled without "-fomit-frame-pointer" that it would work. I think it is a valid sort of flag to use in building libraries such as this, especially given the explanation the gcc man page has for the flag, but it's troubling that a standard version (on a standard distribution) of gcc creates occasionally broken output with it. Anybody from Mandrake listening here that might want to fix this and get an update published? Yes please - I for one would be extremely grateful to see a fix popping up in MandrakeUpdate soon, if at all possible. :-) Cheers, Geoff
Re: [expert] GCC: incorrect size of structure
On Thursday 18 January 2001 05:26, you wrote: Dear Expert Users! My name is Laszlo Baranyai and this is the first time I have written to this list. I am working with digital image processing and would like to compile my algorithms under Linux as well. The following program is written Because of structure padding, you can't rely on having the structure be so many bytes. gcc will align stuff on boundaries, and pad the intervening spaces with zeros. I think there's a compiler option to control this - you might want to look at the GCC HOWTO. Laszlo Baranyai -- David E. Fox Thanks for letting me [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your hard disk. ---
Re: [expert] GCC: incorrect size of structure
Baranyai László [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Expert Users!
My name is Laszlo Baranyai and this is the first time I have written to this
list. I am working with digital image processing and would like to compile
my algorithms under Linux as well. The following program is written in C
and has strange result: the 14 byte structure allocates 16 bytes, the 3 byte
structure requires 3 bytes !?
Interesting. Is this x86 linux or sparc linux? What compiler?
Ok, now to the answer:
--Source of "test.c"---
#include stdio.h
typedef struct tagBMPHEAD {
char Signature[2];
unsigned int FileSize;
unsigned int Reserved;
unsigned int DataOffset;
} BMPHEAD;
the above structure has 2 chars followed by 3 ints.
If you don't tell the compiler to pack your structures, then
it is padding them so that ints land on a boundary which
makes accessing them faster (on Suns, it makes it MUCH
faster, since Suns will bus error if you try to get
something longer than a byte from a non-aligned address).
I've not needed to pack my structures in a while, so I've
forgotten the compiler option to do that. check the man page...
typedef struct tagPixel24bit {
unsigned char Blue,Green,Red;
} PIXEL24;
this structure does not have any elements which 'need'
alignment at something other than a byte boundary, so
packing is done regardless.
A warning - some compilers may force the STRUCTURE to be
aligned even if there are only chars inside it!
rc
Rusty Carruth Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (480) 345-3621 SnailMail: Schlumberger ATE
FAX: (480) 345-8793 7855 S. River Parkway, Suite 116
Ham: N7IKQ @ 146.82+,pl 162.2 Tempe, AZ 85284-1825
ICBM: 33 20' 44"N 111 53' 47"W
Re: [expert] gcc/g++ kde1-compat problems
Benjamin Ellis wrote: [...] Also, is there a way to perserve desktop icon layout and panel launcher settings when updating to kde2.0 final? I've reinstalled mandrake-desk, setup, and initscripts and it still doesn't look the way it did when i first installed. The launcher icons don't point to anything and most of the KDE apps are missing from the menu. I can't help you with your compile problems but as for kde 2.0final. I do believe it is major-league broken. If you check you will also see that almost EVERY single site that had the rpms yesterday no longer have them. There are only a couple of sites that still has them and I'll bet they vanish soon too. The drive icons don't do anything. Instead of opening up the drive, you get a menu asking what you want to open it will (no mounting, nothing). A number of the entries in the kmenu, when you actually get them, don't work. The "run" command in the menu, as far as I can tell, doesn't work either. Enter ANY command you want in the run window and it will not do anything. Broken. Big, bad broken. Useless broken. The announcement of the final was premature. I am now kde-less after trying to play with kde 2.0 "final". I am not willing to go back and reinstall all of the 1.1.2 rpms yet AGAIN so it looks like it is gnome from here on out. If kde 2.0 isn't fixed and available soon (and if it REQUIRES one to run a beta version of Mandrake), then I may just get so used to gnome that I never go back. On a side note... One should not HAVE to run a beta distribution in order to run a non-beta, stable app like KDE 2.0 is _supposed_ to be. I am presuming at this point that it was widely discovered to be REALLY dicked up and thus it was pulled and that a fixed version will soon appear. How terribly embarrassing and what bad press they will end up with making an announcement that the STABLE and FINAL KDE 2.0 is now available only to find that it is VERY screwed up package. That is something one expects from M$. Message to Mandrake: do not make the STABLE version of KDE 2.0 dependent upon BETA level libs and an otherwise BETA system. Bad, bad, bad. praedor Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
Re: [expert] gcc internal error
I'm trying to compile the jikes compiler and I get an internal error when I do. Has anyone else seen this with 7.1? I'd compiled it on 7.0 with no problem. In file included from system.cpp:12: tuple.h: In method `void TupleTupleAstExpression * ::AllocateMoreSpace()': tuple.h:195: instantiated from `TupleTupleAstExpression * ::NextIndex()' tuple.h:209: instantiated from `TupleTupleAstExpression * ::Next()' semantic.h:186: instantiated from here tuple.h:95: Internal compiler error. tuple.h:95: Please submit a full bug report. tuple.h:95: See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/faq.html#bugreport for instructions. Before I file a bug report, I'd like to know if others have seen this behaviour before. Templates have always been a pain for all C++ compilers... You may want to try the most recent development versions of g++, which you'll find on Cooker. You can find your closest Cooker mirror after the list you'll find here : http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/cookerdevel.php3 The latest gcc version is 2.96, and should work fine. Should you have any further problems on that point, don't hesitate to keep me posted. Best regards, Fabrice -- Fabrice Medio MandrakeSoft Professional Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
Re: [expert] gcc compilation executable file won't run
Jason Yeoh wrote: hi there : Good day. after compilation hello.c file by typing gcc -o hello hello.c and I try to type hello and run it but i got the message such as bash : hello: command not found. How to make it run by typing hello ? any additional package do i need to install it ? At first my gcc compilation software wont run as well, with the error message such as "bash: gcc: command not found". What is the package do i need to install ? No need to install any package..just go to the directory where your hello executable is located and type ./hello. This occurs because your executable is not in your path Thanks very much Regards Jason Yeoh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/ Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list. -- Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip round the sun begin:vcard n:Sadagopan;Aravind tel;home:+65 7778507 tel;work:+65 8808592 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Ericsson Telecommunications adr:;;Singapore version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Software Engineer x-mozilla-cpt:;-20352 fn:Aravind Sadagopan end:vcard Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
Re: [expert] gcc compilation executable file won't run
linux looks in pre-specified places for executables to run. these places are listed in the PATH variable. you can run executables that are not listed in PATH by giving the full pathway: # /home/bob/bin/hello or if you are in /home/bob/bin/ then try # ./hello or you can add /home/bob/bin/ to your PATH and it will find # hello there are lots of docs on how to set the PATH var (check the archive). cheers, Gavin on 10/3/00 12:36 AM, Jason Yeoh wrote: hi there : Good day. after compilation hello.c file by typing gcc -o hello hello.c and I try to type hello and run it but i got the message such as bash : hello: command not found. How to make it run by typing hello ? any additional package do i need to install it ? At first my gcc compilation software wont run as well, with the error message such as "bash: gcc: command not found". What is the package do i need to install ? Thanks very much Regards Jason Yeoh Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
Matt Stegman wrote: I believe the RPMs are compiled with several GCC options that optimize compiling for i586. Still, if your compiler is crashing with signal 11, I don't know that I'd trust it, even to recompile for i486. Well, I'll just recompile my compiler and see if that works. (I can't compile a kernel it the compilers current state for some obscure reason so I'll have to have a flawless compiler first.) May you live long and spamless, Andreas Bergstrøm -- HTTP://www.thespambuster.net/ Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE! == http://www.euro.cauce.org/ Using Linux? Register at: http://counter.li.org/ Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
Coule be bad memory, bably seated CPU.. * Andreas Bergstr?m [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000720 11:29]: When I am compiling something large, like a new kernel or Apache, GCC/make has a tendency to receive a signal 11 several times during the process, forcing me to restart make. I did not observe this when running RedHat so I was wondering if it could be the Mandrake optimisation of the kernel. (Happens on original 7.0 kernel as well as 2.2.16-9mdk-secure. Or is this just the price for running i586 optimized code on a i486? May you live long and spamless, Andreas Bergstrøm -- HTTP://www.thespambuster.net/ Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE! == http://www.euro.cauce.org/ Using Linux? Register at: http://counter.li.org/ They say when nature calls you should answer it, I say let the answering machine get it.
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
When I am compiling something large, like a new kernel or Apache, GCC/make has a tendency to receive a signal 11 several times during the process, forcing me to restart make. I did not observe this when running RedHat so I was wondering if it could be the Mandrake optimisation of the kernel. (Happens on original 7.0 kernel as well as 2.2.16-9mdk-secure. Or is this just the price for running i586 optimized code on a i486? I always thought that Mandrake was not just i586 optimized code but i586 ONLY code. I think it's much safer to stick with RedHat for anything less than a Pentium cpu.
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
Tony McGee wrote: I always thought that Mandrake was not just i586 optimized code but i586 ONLY code. I think it's much safer to stick with RedHat for anything less than a Pentium cpu. Well, I used RedHat before, but I could not get my ISDN TA card to function, so that is not an option, besides, I like Mandrake. Well, I am not any other problems which could relate to the i486/i586 code , so I doubt that is the main reason for those signal 11s. It could be the cause of pppd crashing the entire system when doing as 'killall pppd' though, but I doubt it. Well, thanks anyway. May you live long and spamless, Andreas Bergstrøm -- HTTP://www.thespambuster.net/ Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE! == http://www.euro.cauce.org/ Using Linux? Register at: http://counter.li.org/ All true wisdom is found on T-shirts.
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, you wrote: Tony McGee wrote: I always thought that Mandrake was not just i586 optimized code but i586 ONLY code. I think it's much safer to stick with RedHat for anything less than a Pentium cpu. Well, I used RedHat before, but I could not get my ISDN TA card to function, so that is not an option, besides, I like Mandrake. Well, I am not any other problems which could relate to the i486/i586 code , so I doubt that is the main reason for those signal 11s. It could be the cause of pppd crashing the entire system when doing as 'killall pppd' though, but I doubt it. Well, thanks anyway. You might try RedHat 6.2. It's got most of the same software that Mandrake 7.01 had, except that they are (mostly) the "full-release versions" instead of release candidates. John
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Andreas [iso-8859-1] Bergstrøm wrote: Tony McGee wrote: I always thought that Mandrake was not just i586 optimized code but i586 ONLY code. I think it's much safer to stick with RedHat for anything less than a Pentium cpu. Well, I used RedHat before, but I could not get my ISDN TA card to function, so that is not an option, besides, I like Mandrake. Well, I am not any other problems which could relate to the i486/i586 code , so I doubt that is the main reason for those signal 11s. It could be the cause of pppd crashing the entire system when doing as 'killall pppd' though, but I doubt it. Well, thanks anyway. Grab Mandrake's i486 7.0 ISO. A list of mirrors is on Mandrake's site. http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ftp.php3 Look at the bottom of the page. -Matt Stegman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
Matt Stegman wrote: Grab Mandrake's i486 7.0 ISO. A list of mirrors is on Mandrake's site. http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ftp.php3 Thanks, I'll consider it of someone could verify that the Mandrake RPMs are i586 code only, not just optimized. The systems feels no slower than it was with RedHat 5.2 or 6.0, so if the Mandrake code is just i586 optimized I will stick with it and recompile for i486 RPM by RPM. (Downloading a 650 MB ISO on a single ISDN line takes a lot of time.) May you live long and spamless, Andreas Bergstrøm -- HTTP://www.thespambuster.net/ Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE! == http://www.euro.cauce.org/ Using Linux? Register at: http://counter.li.org/ Get forgiveness now -- tomorrow you may no longer feel guilty.
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
John Aldrich wrote: You might try RedHat 6.2. It's got most of the same software that Mandrake 7.01 had, except that they are (mostly) the "full-release versions" instead of release candidates. Well, I have a Mandrake 7.1 on it way to me in the mail, and I personally prefer using it, so I'll stick to Mandrake for the time being. But I would like to pinpoint the source of the signal 11s, but thanks anyway. May you live long and spamless, Andreas Bergstrøm -- HTTP://www.thespambuster.net/ Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE! == http://www.euro.cauce.org/ Using Linux? Register at: http://counter.li.org/ BE ALERT (The world needs more lerts ...)
Re: [expert] GCC/make gets random signal 11s
I believe the RPMs are compiled with several GCC options that optimize compiling for i586. Still, if your compiler is crashing with signal 11, I don't know that I'd trust it, even to recompile for i486. -Matt Stegman [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Andreas [iso-8859-1] Bergstrøm wrote: Matt Stegman wrote: Grab Mandrake's i486 7.0 ISO. A list of mirrors is on Mandrake's site. http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ftp.php3 Thanks, I'll consider it of someone could verify that the Mandrake RPMs are i586 code only, not just optimized. The systems feels no slower than it was with RedHat 5.2 or 6.0, so if the Mandrake code is just i586 optimized I will stick with it and recompile for i486 RPM by RPM. (Downloading a 650 MB ISO on a single ISDN line takes a lot of time.) May you live long and spamless, Andreas Bergstrøm -- HTTP://www.thespambuster.net/ Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE! == http://www.euro.cauce.org/ Using Linux? Register at: http://counter.li.org/ Get forgiveness now -- tomorrow you may no longer feel guilty.
Re: [expert] gcc compile error
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000, you wrote: Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther the normanl install I get the following error on ./configure - checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. - I used rpm --install to install the files. What did I do wrong and how can I fix this without reinstalling Mandrake 7.02 I know that this program compiles with Mandrake if I do a devoloper instalation. -- Eugene Grimsdell System Administrator OSRAM South Africawww.osram.co.za Tell: +27 11 805-1711 Cell: +27 83 491-0955 Fax: +27 11 405-0955 -- Sounds like a ./configure --prefix=/usr is required on build check and see if the software wasn't installed in /usr/local rather than /usr Visionary : John Hawk Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL Developer Latest Project: http://visionary-hawk.webjump.com/lnxzip.html
Re: [expert] gcc compile error
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, John Hawk wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2000, you wrote: Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther the normanl install I get the following error on ./configure - checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. - I used rpm --install to install the files. What did I do wrong and how can I fix this without reinstalling Mandrake 7.02 I know that this program compiles with Mandrake if I do a devoloper instalation. Sounds like a ./configure --prefix=/usr is required on build check and see if the software wasn't installed in /usr/local rather than /usr Sounds like the glibc-devel package is missing. -- seb
RE: [expert] gcc compile error
I had this problem last week. Ended up being a corrupt Perl installation. Reinstalled Perl and all is fine again. -Original Message- From: John Hawk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 11:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] gcc compile error On Thu, 08 Jun 2000, you wrote: Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther the normanl install I get the following error on ./configure - checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. - I used rpm --install to install the files. What did I do wrong and how can I fix this without reinstalling Mandrake 7.02 I know that this program compiles with Mandrake if I do a devoloper instalation. -- Eugene Grimsdell System Administrator OSRAM South Africawww.osram.co.za Tell: +27 11 805-1711 Cell: +27 83 491-0955 Fax: +27 11 405-0955 -- Sounds like a ./configure --prefix=/usr is required on build check and see if the software wasn't installed in /usr/local rather than /usr Visionary : John Hawk Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL Developer Latest Project: http://visionary-hawk.webjump.com/lnxzip.html
RE: [expert] gcc compile error
You are missing a compiler component or the compiler itself failed to install. Put your Drake CDROM in then open /mnt/cdrom/Mandrake/RPMS look for gcc files. I am at work on an NT box so I can't give you the actual name. Then as root issue rpm -i gcc_whatever_version.rpm if I remember correctly there are a total of 12 packages just for C / C++ compilers. Mac -Original Message- From: Eugene Grimsdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [expert] gcc compile error Instaling gcc make and automake on a instalation afther the normanl install I get the following error on ./configure - checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. - I used rpm --install to install the files. What did I do wrong and how can I fix this without reinstalling Mandrake 7.02 I know that this program compiles with Mandrake if I do a devoloper instalation. -- Eugene GrimsdellSystem Administrator OSRAM South Africa www.osram.co.za Tell: +27 11 805-1711 Cell: +27 83 491-0955 Fax:+27 11 405-0955
Re: [expert] GCC Problems.
Do an rpm -qa | grep c++ Should get something like libstdc++-2.95xxx libstdc++-compatxxx gcc-c++- If not you can install them off you cd. Hope this helps. Sean Armstrong wrote: I'm running Mandrake 7.02 on my Dell XPS 133c. I installed the minimal amount of packages that Mandrake will let you then I installed more packages individually as I needed them I though that I installed all of the necessary gcc packages to do some compiling of software. I've compiled the program before on the same computer when I installed the full Mandrake 7.02 distribution, but when I run ./configure on this new setup I get the following error: configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C++ compiler cannot create executables. I thought that I had installed all of the libraries needed. I even installed the kernel-headers. I'm at a lost at what could be the problem so I thought that maybe one of you experts could give me a clue to what's wrong. I also had problems with the new XFree86 4.0 distributin. When I installed it everything worked fine but I kept getting rpm errors when I tried to install software that said I was missing libXpm.so.4 file, but when I checked the /usr/X11R6/lib directory the link/files were there. And the new netscape would run but the pages would become blank if anything was moved over it and moved away. I think netscape was having trouble finding the files also. So I reverted back to the distributions rpm of Xfree86 and everything works fine again. I sure would appreciate any help with these matters. Thanx, SA Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [expert] GCC and EGCS in Mandrake 7
ecgs seems to install it all if gcc isn't installed already . . . "John D. Kim" wrote: My machine has both gcc and egcs packages installed, and I've noticed that egcs doesn't install any binaries besides egcs-version. All it does is install the headers and libraries. Supposedly according to Linus, we should be compiling the kernels with either gcc 2.70.x or egcs 1.1.2. And we definitely should not compile with gcc 2.95.1. Mandrake comes with gcc 2.95.2, which has been known to work better than 2.95.1. I know that the gcc project is now implementing egcs into the project, but what's the point of installing the egcs headers only if gcc won't use egcs libraries? Does gcc use egcs libraries? Please shed some light on this. Thanks. John Kim Linux System Engineer @ ASL - visit us as www.aslab.com -- "Brian, the man from babble-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com.
RE: [expert] gcc not working properly
It was my experience that there are a lot of C files not installed by default, namely all the standard header files. This surprised me. If you install the kernel source, they will be installed. This has been my experience. -Andrew Vick = Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Civileme wrote: Put your 7.0 install CD back in, boot from it, choose Custom, Development, Upgrade It will leave your settings alone and give you all the packages you need (and more besides, against future development needs) Are you sure? It has been my (sad) experience that you CANNOT change away from the original type of installation during an upgrade install - DrakX just ignores your new type once you select upgrade and uses the old type selection. This means that if you want to change installation type your only option is a fresh virgin initial install. IMHO a very serious bug/problem. -- Regards, Ron. [AU] - sent by Linux.
Re: [expert] gcc not working properly
Trevor Farrell a écrit :
My Mdk 7.0 install (I just hit the recommended button let it do the
rest) does not seem to have set up gcc correctly. Can anyone tell me
what I need to do to fix this?
[root@treble nicq-0.0.5]# ./configure
creating cache ./config.cache
checking for a BSD compatible install.../usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking whether make sets ${MAKE}... yes
checking for working aclocal... missing
checking for working autoconf... missing
checking for working automake... missing
checking for working autoheader... missing
checking for working makeinfo... missing
Those packages are not installed.
Yann
checking for gcc... gcc
checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no
configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler
cannot
create executables.
[root@treble nicq-0.0.5]#
--
Ionix Services, les services réseaux d'aujourd'hui
http://www.ionix-services.com/
Tel 04 76 70 64 24
Fax 04 76 70 64 25
Re: [expert] gcc not working properly
Trevor Farrell wrote:
My Mdk 7.0 install (I just hit the recommended button let it do the
rest) does not seem to have set up gcc correctly. Can anyone tell me
what I need to do to fix this?
[root@treble nicq-0.0.5]# ./configure
creating cache ./config.cache
checking for a BSD compatible install.../usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking whether make sets ${MAKE}... yes
checking for working aclocal... missing
checking for working autoconf... missing
checking for working automake... missing
checking for working autoheader... missing
checking for working makeinfo... missing
checking for gcc... gcc
checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no
configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler
cannot
create executables.
[root@treble nicq-0.0.5]#
Put your 7.0 install CD back in, boot from it, choose Custom,
Development, Upgrade It will leave your settings alone and give you all
the packages you need (and more besides, against future development
needs)
You could also just go get the development packages by using the package
manager, but then you would have to check which packages come with which
modules and there are _many_ packages in
/mnt/cdrom/Mandrake/RPMS on the 7.0-2 installation CD.
Civileme
Re: [expert] gcc not working properly
Civileme wrote: Put your 7.0 install CD back in, boot from it, choose Custom, Development, Upgrade It will leave your settings alone and give you all the packages you need (and more besides, against future development needs) Are you sure? It has been my (sad) experience that you CANNOT change away from the original type of installation during an upgrade install - DrakX just ignores your new type once you select upgrade and uses the old type selection. This means that if you want to change installation type your only option is a fresh virgin initial install. IMHO a very serious bug/problem. -- Regards, Ron. [AU] - sent by Linux.
Re: [expert] GCC 2.95
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Sheldon Lee Wen wrote: How difficult would it be, and wat problems would it cause to update the pgcc to the new gcc2.95 I'm really looking forward to using the new gjc front end and improved c++ features but I don't want to break my compiler and libs. You will definately run into some problems. There have been a number of internal changes (gcc got much stricter in some areas, and the asm() syntax was changed to disallow clobbering used registers)) that prevent a number of applications from compiling with gcc 2.95.. (or pgcc 2.95, which will be released some time next week). For the moment, I wouldn't recommend using it to anyone who might need to compile any "old" applications - at least not without keeping an older version around to fall back to. Also, will we see a mandrake rpm for it? Definately. Either gcc 2.95 of pgcc 2.95; we'll see which one once pgcc 2.95 is out. But (for the reasons mentioned above) it won't be the default compiler for a while. LLaP bero
