> From: "Cliff McDiarmid" <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:19 +0200 > Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Solid failure in Frameworks-5.25.0 > > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 at 11:29 PM > From: "Ken Moffat" <[email protected]> > To: "BLFS Support List" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Solid failure in Frameworks-5.25.0 > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:50:30PM +0100, akhiezer wrote: > > > From: "Cliff McDiarmid" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 20:35:36 +0200 > > > Subject: [blfs-support] Solid failure in Frameworks-5.25.0 > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Does anyone know what's causing this when building Solid as part of > > > Frameworks? Or has anyone seen this before? > > > > > > > > > [ 40%] Building C object > > > src/solid/CMakeFiles/KF5Solid_static.dir/predicate_lexer.c.o > > > /mnt/home/cliffys/frameworks-5.26.0/solid-5.25.0/build/src/solid/predicate_lexer.c: > > > In function âSolidensure_buffer_stackâ: > > > /mnt/home/cliffys/frameworks-5.26.0/solid-5.25.0/build/src/solid/predicate_lexer.c:1587:21: > > > error: C++ style comments are not allowed in ISO C90 > > > num_to_alloc = 1; // After all that talk, this was set to 1 anyways... > > > ^ > > > > Dealing with the info 'in isolation' - haven't gone back and looked at book > > pages: > > > > either: > > ==== > > * change that line, in: > > /mnt/home/cliffys/frameworks-5.26.0/solid-5.25.0/build/src/solid/predicate_lexer.c > > , to: > > num_to_alloc = 1; /* After all that talk, this was set to 1 anyways... */ > > But you might hit similar issue in other files: so ref following option, > > below. > > > > * or: > > tell the compiler to use an appropriate C version later than 'ISO C90'; or > > at least to be relaxed about such '// ...' comment styles. > > ==== > > > > >Yes, it seems strange that it is setting things up as if for an old > >compiler. > > Not exactly old - Solid-5.25.0 on mine reported > > -- The C compiler identification is GNU 6.1.0 > -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 6.1.0 > -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc > -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- works > -- Detecting C compiler ABI info > -- Detecting C compiler ABI info - done > -- Detecting C compile features > -- Detecting C compile features - done > -- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++ > -- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++ -- works > -- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info > -- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info - done > -- Detecting CXX compile features > -- Detecting CXX compile features - done > > > >In 7.9-rc1 I had similar output with 5.18, except the compiler was > >5.3.0. I can't go back and compare that source to 5.25.0 because > >http://download.kde.org/stable/frameworks/ has nothing before 5.20, > >but I will be very surprised if '//' comments are a recent addition. > > >So, which compiler are you using, and what does cmake think it is > >when trying to build solid ? Or did you accidentally use some > >CFLAGS or CXXFLAGS to force the version ? > > I would have thought GCC 6.1 would have been fine. Not using CFLAGS or > CXXFLAGS, I use to use them don't anymore. >
It's not so much the gcc version per se: it's which 'C' standard it's trying to conform to - ref e.g.: --- * https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html (& sub-ref: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html#Standards) - see the top two items, '-ansi' & '-std='; & incl the examples they give re '//'-style comments. --- Basically, you may have some command-line switch &/or environment-var that is reaching as far as the gcc cmdline, and causing the problem. hth, akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
