Sorry, I intended to send this to the list and not to Axel directly. Christopher
----- Forwarded message from Christopher Pinon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:25:43 +0000 From: Christopher Pinon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Axel Liljencrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Fish-users] problem compiling fish on an older system In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Composer: nano 1.2.4 On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 09:52:01PM +0100, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > 2006/1/29, Christopher Pinon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 10:47:26PM +0100, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > > > 2006/1/28, Christopher Pinon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I would like to ask whether there's any hope of compiling fish-1.20.1 on > > > > an older system (gcc-2.95.3, glibc-2.2.3, doxygen-1.2.18). I've included > > > > the console log of configure below, but this looks OK. The problem is > > > > that I get a bad error as soon as I start make: > > > > > > > > > > > > $ make > > > > gcc -g -O2 -Wall -std=gnu99 -fno-strict-aliasing -c -o function.o > > > > function.c > > > > cc1: unknown C standard `gnu99' > > > > function.c: In function `function_add': > > > > function.c:96: parse error before `*' > > > > function.c:97: `d' undeclared (first use in this function) > > > > function.c:97: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > > > > function.c:97: for each function it appears in.) > > > > make: *** [function.o] Error 1 > > > > > > > > > > I honestly don't know. The above error is caused by sloppy coding, > > > namely a variable which is declared in the middle of a block. Moving > > > the declaration to the top of the function should solve it. But GCC3 > > > and GCC4 refuse to compile unless one sets the C version to C99. As > > > near as I can tell, this is either a Glibc bug or a GCC bug, seems > > > there is some kind of problem with the siginfo_t type. > > > > Hi Axel, > > > > Thanks for your reply. I don't think that I'm going to investigate this > > further. > > Too bad. What I meant is that I don't feel confident enough to play around with the code with the goal of trying to compile fish with gcc-2.95.3. Plus it would only be a solution until the next version of fish ... > > However, you might take this as a good example of fish's not > > compiling with gcc-2.95.3 and suggest a minimal gcc requirement > > somewhere in your install instructions (though I admit that I may not a > > typical user in this respect). > > I'm not sure where to put this. In the INSTALL file? Maybe ./configure > should send out a warning? Anyone with an opinion? Well, I've read somewhere that not everyone always reads INSTALL files (though I always do!). However, as a start it could be in the INSTALL file or wherever you choose to describe the prerequisites for compiling fish, but ideally ./configure would send out a warning as well. Christopher ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
