I wrote this a bit back. It supports everything but the kernel. There appears to be some header confusion and I couldn't see the gcc options that were necessary. But I only needed userspace so...
http://gerrit.openafs.org/#change,10464 Since the other commenter said he had something to do this already I abandoned this change. In message <[email protected]>,Coy Hile writes: >Good afternoon, all. > >I=92m working on getting OpenAFS to build on SmartOS. SmartOS builds = >completely with gcc these days (unlike, perhaps, other bits bits of the = >greater illumos/Solaris ecosystem. However, the Solaris-specific bits = >of the source tree assume that one will be using the Studio compilers = >exclusively. I=92ve got two questions. =20 > >Firstly, is there any guide or best practice for converting a makefile = >between supporting the Studio compilers and gcc? So far, I=92ve figured = >out that -KPIC in CFLAGS becomes -fPIC, and that there=92s no -mt option = >to gcc. =20 > >The second is perhaps of more use; what is the consensus about doing the = >changes to autoconf=92d bits to support gcc if on SmartOS? Would case = >statements for =93joyent=94 in uname -v output be the best way to = >differentiate between SmartOS and everybody else who still uses studio? = >If I can get the first question sorted, I can certainly get something = >that will work; the question is whether a local patch that I keep around = >in my own repos, or if it=92s something the larger community would like = >to see contributed back. > >Thanks, > >-c= >_______________________________________________ >OpenAFS-devel mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
