[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch
From: |
Claes Wallin |
Subject: |
Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:53:12 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060516) |
Kevin Ryde wrote:
> Claes Wallin <address@hidden> writes:
>> It seems that isinf is c99, and that earlier gcc:s supported it in isoc
>> as a GNU extension. If we're using c99, why not specify it? What good
>> things will be turned off?
>
> Every time I've had the misfortune to experiment with standards-modes
> on headers or whatever it's been painful. I think _POSIX_SOURCE
> losing all GNU extras was the most recent bad bit in guile.
Yes. Turned out that -std=c99 turned asm() off. I will hit myself over
the head if I try drawing conclusions without a clean tree ever again..
-std=gnu99 worked, or changing those asm() to __asm().
> Is isinf missed on solaris? Is there another way to ask for it?
isinf is contained in an '#ifdef _STD_C99' section.
Status this weekend:
Solaris 10 with 'CFLAGS=-O2 -std=gnu99' passed all tests including
regexp.test with following changes:
* Updated HAVE_ALLOCA_H blocks in libguile/eval.c libguile/filesys.c
* Check for HAVE_PTHREAD_GETATTR_NP in libguile/threads.c
* Tests using scm_boot_guile instead of scm_init_guile
* <string.h> in libguile/threads.c
* Addition of version.texi in doc/ref/ and doc/tutorial/
* { PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT } in libguile/threads-pthreads.h
* Check for HAVE_DECL_SETHOSTNAME libguile/posix.c
Mac OS X with 'CFLAGS=-O2' passed all tests except regexp test with:
* HAVE_PTHREAD_GETATTR_NP
* init -> boot
* version.texi
Mac OS X also accepted the Solaris 10 patches without any additional
problems.
/c
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, (continued)
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Claes Wallin, 2006/07/20
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Claes Wallin, 2006/07/20
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/20
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Claes Wallin, 2006/07/21
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/23
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Claes Wallin, 2006/07/24
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Claes Wallin, 2006/07/24
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/20
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Claes Wallin, 2006/07/21
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/23
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch,
Claes Wallin <=
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/24
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/20
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/24
- Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Ludovic Courtès, 2006/07/25
Re: CVS-060720 compilation failure on Solaris 10, patch, Kevin Ryde, 2006/07/20