Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
Valentin Nechayev wrote: Essential words are understriked. I can't imagine how it can be read as unsupported. Non-native English speaking. Specifically: DESThey are retained because of their widespread use, DESbut their use in new implementations (for ~~~ DESimplementation features) or new programs (for language ~~~ DES[6.11] or library features [7.26]) is discouraged. So... implementations... what is the direct object, and what is the implied object for what's being discouraged here? A non-native English speaker could easily interpret this to mean new compiler implementations, instead of what was intended, which is new program implementations using the language defined herein. Another less likely interpretation is just what discouraged means... does the compiler emit a message? Does it emit a warning? Does it emit an error? An error truly *would* be discouraging. Again, the distinction that allows something to be discouraged without being discouraging, in that particular sense, is generally lost on the non-native English speaker (look up gerund, if you get a chance). DESs interpretation is clearly wrong; on the other hand, the standards language is ambiguous, unless you are very familiar with English (more than most native English speakers are familiar with it, in fact). -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
On Thursday 29 May 2003 00:12, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, we're dealing with something a bit more stable in terms of code base, anyway. Having to commit a whole bunch of fixes for the sake of a compiler upgrade isn't acceptable. Sounds like the GCC guys have been bitten by the Linux bug. May I remind you that KR-style declarations have been deprecated for the last 14 years? Funny, the last time I looked at a C language specification they were still supported. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 29 May 2003 00:12, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: May I remind you that KR-style declarations have been deprecated for the last 14 years? Funny, the last time I looked at a C language specification they were still supported. 6.11.5 Function definitions [#1] The use of function definitions with separate parameter identifier and declaration lists (not prototype-format parameter type and identifier declarators) is an obsolescent feature. and obsolescent feature is defined as follows in the introduction: [#2] Certain features are obsolescent, which means that they may be considered for withdrawal in future revisions of this International Standard. They are retained because of their widespread use, but their use in new implementations (for implementation features) or new programs (for language [6.11] or library features [7.26]) is discouraged. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
Wes Peters wrote: On Thursday 29 May 2003 00:12, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: May I remind you that KR-style declarations have been deprecated for the last 14 years? Funny, the last time I looked at a C language specification they were still supported. Give it up. You and I learned C when it was programmers, not compilers, which had to be intelligent. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
Valentin Nechayev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Essential words are understriked. I can't imagine how it can be read as unsupported. I didn't use the word unsupported, I said deprecated. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:19:06, des (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) wrote about Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8: Essential words are understriked. I can't imagine how it can be read as unsupported. DES I didn't use the word unsupported, I said deprecated. Yes. But your message was reply to Wes Peters' one with the following: wp Funny, the last time I looked at a C language specification they were wp still supported. Your citation says they are supported, in spite of any deprecation. -netch- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, we're dealing with something a bit more stable in terms of code base, anyway. Having to commit a whole bunch of fixes for the sake of a compiler upgrade isn't acceptable. Sounds like the GCC guys have been bitten by the Linux bug. May I remind you that KR-style declarations have been deprecated for the last 14 years? By a committee consisting largely of compiler vendors. We know. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2003-05-28 at 14:12:34 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: have you tried -traditional? gcc 3.1 release notes: The -traditional C compiler option has been deprecated and will be removed in GCC 3.3. (It remains possible to preprocess non-C code with the traditional preprocessor.) gcc 3.3 release notes: The -traditional C compiler option has been removed. It was deprecated in 3.1 and 3.2. (Traditional preprocessing remains available.) So, I'd guess in gcc 3.x, this whole option is completely unmaintained and therefore you'd be quite on your own if you try to compile anything seriously with -traditional... :( 2.95.x is probably not going to go away for a long time. :) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPtSsxbBeowouIJajEQLSLgCaAzFTNq08M0cFkBXBHfOWMW9EVnoAoJYH Y1nnQdgORVP5+olXw+VekOYm =CJj2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
On Wednesday 28 May 2003 05:12 am, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GCC 3.2 is broken by design. It insists, amongst other stupidities,
on type-checking arguments using old style declarations like:
int foo(bar)
char *bar;
{}
rendering most UNIX software from before 1996 uncompilable.
have you tried -traditional?
Yup:
cc1: warning: -traditional is deprecated and may be removed
Didn't help a bit.
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
On Wednesday 28 May 2003 04:11 pm, Bruce M Simpson wrote: I remember having to convert all my Lattice C code to use ANSI style declarations after upgrading to SAS/C on the Amiga. However, we're dealing with something a bit more stable in terms of code base, anyway. Having to commit a whole bunch of fixes for the sake of a compiler upgrade isn't acceptable. Sounds like the GCC guys have been bitten by the Linux bug. That's what it sounds like to me, too. At the same time we're changing the ports infrastructure so we intentionally break all cross-compilers; they have to fix the CFLAGS in order to make the compilers compile. Linux may be leading the charge but we're following right along. I may take the time to produce a snobol port that compiles cleanly; I like having it available for hysterical raisins. It does irk me that we can't compile valid KR code without the compiler throwing a conniption fit trying to typecheck something it has no real knowledge of. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
On Thursday 22 May 2003 10:23 am, Julian Elischer wrote:
I have rebuilt my system several times and rebuilt all ports..
/usr/ports/editors/openoffice always ends up with:
GCC 3.2 is broken by design. It insists, amongst other stupidities, on
type-checking arguments using old style declarations like:
int foo(bar)
char *bar;
{}
rendering most UNIX software from before 1996 uncompilable. This is
biting one of my ports, I can't figure out how to shut the fscking thing
up, and am pretty much beyond caring. The Powers That Be in GCC-land
seem to have decided for us the world doesn't need any stinking
20-year-old software.
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8
Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GCC 3.2 is broken by design. It insists, amongst other stupidities, on
type-checking arguments using old style declarations like:
int foo(bar)
char *bar;
{}
rendering most UNIX software from before 1996 uncompilable.
have you tried -traditional?
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
