Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alpha

From: Marc Giger <gigerstyle@×××.ch>
To: gentoo-alpha@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc-2.3.2-decc-compaq.patch
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:54:46
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc-2.3.2-decc-compaq.patch by Aron Griffis
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:26:34 -0500
Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> wrote:

> Marc Giger wrote: [Fri Feb 06 2004, 02:14:11PM EST] > > Yeah, it looks like:-) but I was wrong... I removed this check and > > ran into troubles. The Macro __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG must not be > > defined with ccc. > > But why not? I thought your earlier logic made sense.
The following output shows the problems if __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG is defined: make: *** [Parser/acceler.o] Error 1 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... cc: Error: /usr/include/sys/types.h, line 167: In this declaration, "int64_t" has no linkage and has a prior declaration in this scope at line number 27 in file /usr/lib/compaq/ccc- (nolinkage)__extension__ typedef long long int int64_t; ------------------------------------^ cc: Error: /usr/include/sys/types.h, line 176: In this declaration, "u_int64_t" has no linkage and has a prior declaration in this scope at line number 28 in file /usr/lib/compaq/ccc- (nolinkage)__extension__ typedef unsigned long long int u_int64_t; ---------------------------------------------^ make: *** [Modules/python.o] Error 1 Do you know how to solve it if __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG is defined?
> > > So this check is totally ok! It has nothing to do with > > "long long". Sorry... I was searching for the reason why I couldn't > > compile python with ccc. > > After some time I found it! The attached patch solves the problem. > > Now I'm running python 2.3 compiled with ccc:-) > > I understand what the patch is doing, but I don't understand why > defining __GLIBC_HAVE_LONG_LONG wouldn't be a better solution?
See above. I forgot to mention that it is a fix for python only and I don't know if it should be included in the glibc. I think for other packages to compile it would need a similar fix in other places, too. And- so we end nowhere just because we try to solve ccc problems... This patch was ment to demonstrate only.
> > > This seems not to be the right place neither. I think this is > > useless anyway. The right place to fix it is in > > "". I tried to change it but it seems that a > > shell-script and regex guru is needed;-) The same should be changed > > by cxx (preventing). > > Okay, I think I fixed it. Try out ccc- when it > arrives at your nearest mirror... Let me know what you think.
Cool! I will try it. Thank you!
> > > With these two fixes, I'm able to compile a lot more packages with > > the compaq compiler. > > I'd like to be more certain about the sysmacros.h fix before putting > it in since it modifies glibc. It seems like if that fix is needed > then other header files would need a similar fix!
greets Marc -- gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list