Re: [Oorexx-devel] z/Linux Access Found

2010-09-17 Thread David Ashley
Sorry, my mistake. It was openSuse that uses gcc 4.5, not SLES 11. David Ashley On 09/17/2010 03:47 PM, Erico Mendonca wrote: On 9/17/2010 at 02:36 PM, in message > , Mark Miesfeld > wrote: >> This bug report gives details on the problem I think David is referring to: >> >> https://sourc

Re: [Oorexx-devel] z/Linux Access Found

2010-09-17 Thread Erico Mendonca
>>> On 9/17/2010 at 02:36 PM, in message , Mark Miesfeld wrote: > This bug report gives details on the problem I think David is referring to: > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2991134&group_id=119701&atid=6 > > 84730 > > 4.0.1 rev. 5804, 5766 don't build with gcc 4.5-5.2

Re: [Oorexx-devel] z/Linux Access Found

2010-09-17 Thread Mark Miesfeld
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Erico Mendonca wrote: >  >>> On 9/17/2010 at 10:52 AM, in message <4c93728e.8040...@gmail.com>, David > Ashley > wrote: >> On both the i386 and x86_64 versions on SLES 11 the problem is with the >> version >> of gcc used (4.5?). None of the other Linux distributi

Re: [Oorexx-devel] z/Linux Access Found

2010-09-17 Thread Erico Mendonca
>>> On 9/17/2010 at 10:52 AM, in message <4c93728e.8040...@gmail.com>, David Ashley wrote: > On zLinux the error happens during the creation of rexximage on SLES 11. We > could not get past that error and the error messages were no help at all. > That > is why we reverted to SLES 10. The

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Timeline for V4.1

2010-09-17 Thread David Ashley
Yes, all that should be included, as well as the new rxunixsys external function library. I have been using these for months now without a problem. I just did a commit that put it all back in and fixed the configure.ac and Makefile.am files. It all compiles cleanly of Fedora 13 now. David Ash

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Timeline for V4.1

2010-09-17 Thread Rainer Tammer
Hello, here is a small correction for the alloca: If you use the XL C/C++ compiler then you do not need to include the alloca.h on AIX: # svn diff Index: rxunixsys.h === --- rxunixsys.h (revision 6196) +++ rxunixsys.h (working copy)

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Timeline for V4.1

2010-09-17 Thread Rainer Tammer
Hello, On 17.09.2010 15:41, David Ashley wrote: > Ranier - > > Sorry, AC_PROG_YACC should not have been removed from the autoconf.ac file. > But > the Makefile.am is still messed up. It needs some cleanup to adjust for the > source files we just removed. I will work on that today. > OK, then

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Timeline for V4.1

2010-09-17 Thread Mark Miesfeld
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 6:41 AM, David Ashley wrote: > Sorry, AC_PROG_YACC should not have been removed from the autoconf.ac file. > But > the Makefile.am is still messed up. It needs some cleanup to adjust for the > source files we just removed. I will work on that today. David, do you intend

Re: [Oorexx-devel] z/Linux Access Found

2010-09-17 Thread David Ashley
On zLinux the error happens during the creation of rexximage on SLES 11. We could not get past that error and the error messages were no help at all. That is why we reverted to SLES 10. The RPM produced on SLES 10 seems to work fine on SLES 11. On both the i386 and x86_64 versions on SLES 11

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Timeline for V4.1

2010-09-17 Thread David Ashley
Ranier - Sorry, AC_PROG_YACC should not have been removed from the autoconf.ac file. But the Makefile.am is still messed up. It needs some cleanup to adjust for the source files we just removed. I will work on that today. David Ashley On 09/17/2010 01:05 AM, Rainer Tammer wrote: > Hello MA

Re: [Oorexx-devel] z/Linux Access Found

2010-09-17 Thread Erico Mendonca
>>> On 9/16/2010 at 04:16 PM, in message <4c926d19.3050...@gmail.com>, David >>> Ashley wrote: > BTW, this machine is running Suse 10. We first tried Suse 11 but found that > the > gcc compiler on that version has a problem with our source code. > Subsequently we > found that ALL Suse 11

Re: [Oorexx-devel] RPM Spec File Changes

2010-09-17 Thread Erico Mendonca
>>> On 9/16/2010 at 12:59 PM, in message <4c923ec9.7060...@gmail.com>, David >>> Ashley wrote: > All - > > I have been looking at making some changes to the RPM spec file and I am now > having second/third thought about one issue in the current spec file. > I've had to have those thought