Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/27/08:06:35
On 27 April 2006 06:46, Doyle Rhynard wrote:
> Did you have much trouble building gcc-3.4.4-1? I have been trying off
> and on for several weeks to get it to build with no errors.
> Interestingly, the --enable-fully-dynamic-string is set by default in
> the build script.
Building gcc on cygwin is usually simple. What configure and build commands
are you using?
> The bash script that does the build will not even run due an error with
> an extra "&& )" into the install2 option. There is also a problem with a
> libstdc++ Makefile that might be caused by an error in bash, itself.
This sounds like an error in your configure arguments getting transcribed
into the generated makefiles to me. It's not an extra '&& )', it's something
missing between the '&&' and the ')' that's the real problem, and that
probably happened because a shell variable used to generate the output from
that stage of configure ended up being empty because of a failure of a
pattern-match earlier on because of a mis-spelt option. (Well, for example.)
Configure scripts aren't terribly robust against syntax issues and
metacharacters, let's just hope nobody ever invents a target triplet with
backtick-rm-dash-rf-star-backtick in it![*]
> I also question the wisdom of requiring building of all of the gcc
> languages: c, c++, d, objc, ada, and java requires a considerable amount
> of time.
I also question the wisdom of not having read "configure --help" and noticed
the "--enable-languages=...." option!
> The reason why the source files have not been patched already
> is bothersome in itself. I do not have a clue whether a particular patch
> should be reversed or not before being applied, in ada, for example. I
> just accepted the default and hoped for the best.
You probably shouldn't be patching anything at all. Gcc should build for
cygwin OOTB; there are cygwin-specific patches that add things like
-mno-cygwin, but the basic compiler should be fine as it stands.
> I am getting closer, in any case. On the positive side, I have learned
> how to use the base debugger, bashdb, as well the make debugger, remake.
OOOOH! There's a *make* debugger!?!?! Hallelujah!
cheers,
DaveK
[*] Actually the - in -rf would probably act end up acting as a triplet
separator and meaning that you only ever had two partial and unclosed
back-tick expressions. But *I'm* not going to try it out just in case!
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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 -