Some more details of my problem:
I can get sst to compile on SPARC. It gives me the same exact warnings as
on the Intel box. No problem... as per the docs, these warnings can be
ignored.
So, I truss'd gcc on the two boxes to see where things go wrong, and this
is what I found...
Both boxes fork a copy of 'cc1' (this child is responsible for printing
out the warning messages). This is where things get funky. On the SPARC box,
the child 'cc1' does an exit(0) and the parent goes on to run 'as' as a
new child, which produces the sst.o file.
However, on the Intel box, the child 'cc1' exits with exit(33), and then
the parent immediately does an exit(1). No sst.o ever gets produced.
I've never run into this before, and the truss doesn't indicate any other
problems. I've tried with gcc 2.95.1 and 2.95.2, with same results.
I absolutely need this sucker to run on an Intel box, but if worse comes
to worse, I'll have to scrap Solaris and try a different OS for the amanda
tape server. Virtually all of the cliets that are to be backed up are
Intel Solaris, so I was trying to keep things consitent.
So, two questions: Does anyone know what causes an "exit(33)" in gcc
(cc1)? And has *anybody* successfully compiled sst on Intel Solaris 7, or
should I give up and go make better use of my time by smoking a fat rock
instead?
Thanks,
__Jason
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Jason Tucker wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
>
> > What version of Amanda? What version of sst (i.e. did you get it from
> > the Amanda sources)? Are you building for 32 bit or 64 bit?
>
> Amanda 2.4.2p2
> It's the sst that came with amanda.
> Intel Solaris is only 32 bit capable.
>
>
> > The Amanda 2.4.2p2 contrib/sst/README.Amanda file talks about the very
> > errors you're seeing.
>
> Unfortunately, it simply says to ignore them. That's fine, but I'm still
> left with a failed compilation. Am I missing something painfully obvious?
>
> Thanks,
>
> __Jason
>
>
--
