lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: lynx-dev LYMainLoop.c -- gcc signal 11, egcs-1.1.2


From: T.E.Dickey
Subject: Re: lynx-dev LYMainLoop.c -- gcc signal 11, egcs-1.1.2
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 07:39:11 -0400 (EDT)

> 
> On Sat, Oct 16, 1999, T.E.Dickey wrote: 
> > >  
> > > Is anyone else having any problems compiling LYMainLoop.c in dev.12?  
> > >   
> > > gcc  -DHAVE_CONFIG_H  -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/local/share/locale\" -I. -I.. 
> > > -Ichrtrans -I./chrtrans -I.. -I../src -I../WWW/Library/Implementation   
> > > -O2 -DLINUX  -c ./LYMainLoop.c  
> > > gcc: Internal compiler error: program cpp got fatal signal 11  
> > > make[1]: *** [LYMainLoop.o] Error 1  
> > > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/pk/lynx/2.8.3dev.12/src'  
> > > make: *** [all] Error 2  
> > > address@hidden ~/lynx/2.8.3dev.12]$ gcc -v  
> > > Reading specs from 
> > > /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/egcs-2.91.66/specs  
> > > gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release)  

I'm building with that version right now, to check (seems to work - but I'll
try with your configuration settings).

> > > address@hidden ~/lynx/2.8.3dev.12]$ uname -a  
> > > Linux odin 2.2.12 #3 Thu Sep 2 06:56:14 EDT 1999 i586 unknown  
> [...] 
> > > I can include my cfg_defs.h or lynx_cfg.h if anyone is curious.  I  
> > > doubt this will be debuggable, but figured it might be a data point  
> > > worth something.  
> >  
> > The only way I can see to debug it is to chop pieces out of LYMainLoop.c 
> > until the problem goes away - to see what's causing the problem.  I saw 
> > some comment recently that indicated egcs has some problems with code that 
> > compiles fine with the gcc versions. 
>  
> Any suggestions on which functions to start with?  Probably the main 
> loop.  Also, I just noticed in what I have up there -- it says "cpp" 

yes - or the functions "handle_LYK_xxx" that I split-out of the main loop.
That would be possibly better (since chopping out the main loop would leave
a lot of orphaned private functions, while chopping out the functions themselves
would just leave a lot of implicit declarations).

> got signal 11, not gcc.  Maybe that's what usually comes up, I don't 
> have any old compile failures to compare to.   
>  
> I'll try that. 
>  
>  
> --  
> Hawkeye's Conclusion: 
>       It's not easy to play the clown 
>       when you've got to run the whole circus. 


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey

reply via email to

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