1 |
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:26:34 -0500 |
2 |
Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Marc Giger wrote: [Fri Feb 06 2004, 02:14:11PM EST] |
5 |
> > Yeah, it looks like:-) but I was wrong... I removed this check and |
6 |
> > ran into troubles. The Macro __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG must not be |
7 |
> > defined with ccc. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> But why not? I thought your earlier logic made sense. |
10 |
|
11 |
The following output shows the problems if __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG is |
12 |
defined: |
13 |
|
14 |
make: *** [Parser/acceler.o] Error 1 |
15 |
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... |
16 |
cc: Error: /usr/include/sys/types.h, line 167: In this declaration, |
17 |
"int64_t" has no linkage and has a prior declaration in this scope at |
18 |
line number 27 in file |
19 |
/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/include/sys/types.h. |
20 |
(nolinkage)__extension__ typedef long long int int64_t; |
21 |
------------------------------------^ |
22 |
cc: Error: /usr/include/sys/types.h, line 176: In this declaration, |
23 |
"u_int64_t" has no linkage and has a prior declaration in this scope at |
24 |
line number 28 in file |
25 |
/usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.5.9.001-6/alpha-linux/include/sys/types.h. |
26 |
(nolinkage)__extension__ typedef unsigned long long int u_int64_t; |
27 |
---------------------------------------------^ |
28 |
make: *** [Modules/python.o] Error 1 |
29 |
|
30 |
Do you know how to solve it if __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG is defined? |
31 |
|
32 |
> |
33 |
> > So this check is totally ok! It has nothing to do with |
34 |
> > "long long". Sorry... I was searching for the reason why I couldn't |
35 |
> > compile python with ccc. |
36 |
> > After some time I found it! The attached patch solves the problem. |
37 |
> > Now I'm running python 2.3 compiled with ccc:-) |
38 |
> |
39 |
> I understand what the patch is doing, but I don't understand why |
40 |
> defining __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG wouldn't be a better solution? |
41 |
|
42 |
See above. I forgot to mention that it is a fix for python only and I |
43 |
don't know if it should be included in the glibc. I think for other |
44 |
packages to compile it would need a similar fix in other places, too. |
45 |
And- so we end nowhere just because we try to solve ccc problems... |
46 |
This patch was ment to demonstrate only. |
47 |
|
48 |
> |
49 |
> > This seems not to be the right place neither. I think this is |
50 |
> > useless anyway. The right place to fix it is in |
51 |
> > "create-comp-config.sh". I tried to change it but it seems that a |
52 |
> > shell-script and regex guru is needed;-) The same should be changed |
53 |
> > by cxx (preventing). |
54 |
> |
55 |
> Okay, I think I fixed it. Try out ccc-6.5.9.001-r1.ebuild when it |
56 |
> arrives at your nearest mirror... Let me know what you think. |
57 |
|
58 |
Cool! I will try it. Thank you! |
59 |
|
60 |
> |
61 |
> > With these two fixes, I'm able to compile a lot more packages with |
62 |
> > the compaq compiler. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> I'd like to be more certain about the sysmacros.h fix before putting |
65 |
> it in since it modifies glibc. It seems like if that fix is needed |
66 |
> then other header files would need a similar fix! |
67 |
|
68 |
greets |
69 |
|
70 |
Marc |
71 |
|
72 |
-- |
73 |
gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |