Well, problem solved... sort of. It seems that gcc on Sol7 (i386) is
simply incapable of compiling sst. Fortunately, I learned that I had a
copy of Sun's CC available here, so I tried that and she compiled with no
problem!
Now, if I can only get everything configured properly, I might just make
this work...
Thanks to those who offered advice.
__Jason
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Jason Tucker wrote:
> 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
