Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/10/20/13:59:15
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 01:35:04AM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>A few days ago, I wrote:
>
>> > If you're really motivated, you can build cygwin yourself
>>
>> Alas, much easier said than done. My attempt to build was failing in
>> all kinds of strange ways, apparently related to configure getting the
>> wrong answers about the questions it was asking. The first wrong
>> answer I noticed in my build log was:
>>
>> checking whether gcc -L/scratch/jik/cygwin/build/i686-pc-cygwin/winsup -L/scratch/jik/cygwin/build/i686-pc-cygwin/winsup/cygwin -L/scratch/jik/cygwin/build/i686-pc-cygwin/winsup/w32api/lib -isystem /scratch/jik/cygwin/src/winsup/include -isystem /scratch/jik/cygwin/src/winsup/cygwin/include -isystem /scratch/jik/cygwin/src/winsup/w32api/include -isystem /scratch/jik/cygwin/src/newlib/libc/sys/cygwin -isystem /scratch/jik/cygwin/src/newlib/libc/sys/cygwin32 -B/scratch/jik/cygwin/build/i686-pc-cygwin/newlib/ -isystem /scratch/jik/cygwin/build/i686-pc-cygwin/newlib/targ-include -isystem /scratch/jik/cygwin/src/newlib/libc/include accepts -g... no
>>
>> After several hours of trying various things to debug this, I finally
>> relized that the problem is that many of the tests in the configure
>> scripts rely on empty output from gcc to indicate that there were no
>> errors, but gcc was generating the warning "file patch prefix
>> `/scratch/jik/cygwin/build/i686-pc-cygwin/newlib/' never used" to
>> stderr, thus causing all of those tests to fail.
>>
>> I worked around this problem and managed to get the build to finish by
>> moving gcc.exe to gcc.real and installing this as gcc:
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>> gcc.real "$@" 2>/tmp/err.$$
>> STATUS=$?
>> grep -v "file path prefix \`.*' never used" /tmp/err.$$ 1>&2
>> rm -f /tmp/err.$$
>> exit $STATUS
>>
>> Is this something y'all expect to fail? If so, is it documented
>> anywhere? If not, can it be fixed?
>
>If anyone answered this part of my message, I didn't see it; did some
>send an answer to the mailing list without CC'ing it to me?
>
>In any case, this is still broken in the 10/18 snapshot.
>
>Can someone from the Cygwin team either acknowledge that there is a
>problem here or explain why it isn't one? :-)
There is a problem. Someone changed the top level configure a while ago
and broke things. Newer versions of gcc won't output the warning that you're
seeing so configure succeeds.
There hasn't been much activity lately in coming up with a fix that is
acceptable for older compilers so, if you have a generic fix, it would
be appreciated. Otherwise your work around probably makes sense.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -