Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alpha

From: Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>
To: gentoo-alpha@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc-2.3.2-decc-compaq.patch
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:26:36
Message-Id: 20040207022634.GB20928@time
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc-2.3.2-decc-compaq.patch by Marc Giger
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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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! Regards, Aron -- Aron Griffis Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim) Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc-2.3.2-decc-compaq.patch Marc Giger <gigerstyle@×××.ch>