Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/04/27/00:05:57
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Carlo Florendo wrote:
>
>
>>Larry Hall wrote:
>>
>>
>>>At 11:28 PM 4/25/2004, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Now, upon running ./configure on blackbox, all was ok. When I started make, this is the error I got:
>>>>
>>>>Making all in src
>>>>Window.cc:1396: error: `assert' undeclared (first use this function)
>>>>Window.cc:3234: error: `assert' undeclared (first use this function)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Clearly the problem is that you're missing "#include <assert.h>". That's
>>>likely the result of a configure problem but I didn't investigate to any
>>>great extent so I might be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>Right! When I added "#include <assert.h>", blackbox compiled clearly.
>>How come it didn't complain in the past cygwin? I compiled the same
>>blackbox at a linux box (without my added "#include <assert.h>") and the
>>thing built perfectly. How come the new cygwin behaves differently?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Carlo
>>
>>
>
>Well, as a WAG, assert.h could have been #included in some standard header
>file before, and isn't now. This indicates buggy software, BTW: it
>shouldn't rely on anything else including the needed functionality --
>that's what the double include guards are for. The rule of thumb is:
>"when in doubt, include it". You might want to submit a patch to the
>blackbox maintainers.
> Igor
>
I installed the exact blackbox version as last time which is the latest
official release. This latest official release has one file that calls
assert() but does not #include it. I checked its include tree and, as
far as I looked, have not found the #include <assert.h> anywhere on the
tree. Other files that call assert have the header included in them. The
strangest thing is that the same version
compiles under the current linux that I have (Redhat 9.0), the former
cygwin, but *not* the latest cygwin. It compiles with the latest cygwin
if I #include <assert.h> on the file in question.
Does this mean that there is a problem with gcc? or configure? I'm
confused now whether the problem resides in the packaging of blackbox,
in the way ./configure runs on the old cygwin, or on the way ./configure
runs on the new cygwin, or in Linux or even in gcc. Why doesn't gcc
complain in the old cygwin and in Linux?
I could submit a patch to the blackbox maintainers but will have to tell
them that the reason for it is so that it will compile with the latest
cygwin. Or could it be that ./configure needs to be patched?
Thanks a lot!
Best Regards,
Carlo
------
Carlo Florendo y Flora
Astra Philippines Inc.
www.astra.ph
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -