bug-coreutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [patch] Get coreutils 6.1 to build on a ANSI 89 compiler


From: mwoehlke
Subject: Re: [patch] Get coreutils 6.1 to build on a ANSI 89 compiler
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:57:09 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060719 Thunderbird/1.5.0.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0

Bob Proulx wrote:
mwoehlke wrote:
Right. Most likely I will build the next "stable" coreutils across the board, at which point I expect I will probably file a few bug reports (or one, with many parts) detailing how to detect and enable c99 for various platforms (particularly on systems where the answer is an esoteric compiler option rather than 'c99').

Hmm...  You have stated what is often a common circular dependency.
When the code becomes perfect and won't change anymore then try it on
all of the peripheral platforms.  But those platforms are bound to
expose issues that we won't know about until you try it there.  A
circular dependency.  I am guilty of that myself at times.  But it
would be better for the project if you could try it while it is
developing and then report problems before it is declared to be
perfect.  Then the stable release really will work on that platform.

Sigh. Should've seen this coming. The problem is that I am maintaining a toolset for use by several people that (to be honest) may or may not realize they're using a custom toolset. For this reason, I am not going to put "into production" anything the developers do not believe is "stable" (most of the problems I run into are minor build errors, not show-stoppers; i.e. not things that affect my confidence that the program will behave as expected and intended). Plus it takes a good deal of time to build that many platforms, and I am doing this on the side.

But I guess you've talked me into it, if I get time.

What I am NOT going to do is install an "unstable" toolset. What I am willing to do is 'make' and 'make test'. (Or is it 'make check? I always forget :-).) Then I can bring up any test failures.

Checking the two most likely suspects, however; I don't see a 'c99' on NSK/OSS, and the help for 'cc' mentions 'c89', which is not a good sign. Irix however has a 'c99', and I *think* the rest of my set probably have some means of compiling c99.

As Paul noted gcc 3.x is enough and in the cases that I know about the
commercial vendor native C compilers also support declarations after
statements.  On HP-UX I build with the native C compiler and it
supports it.  On some platforms you may want to update gcc.  On others
you may have to use the patch.

I think OSS/NSK would need the patch. I'm not sure how inclined I am to try to build gcc on that platform... or even a new coreutils for that matter; building 5.97 was painful enough :-).

--
Matthew
73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]