"Craig A. Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've applied Charles Lane's three patches posted at
>
> <http://www.crinoid.com/perl560.htmlx>
>
> I applied them to 5.6.0 and built on DEC C 5.2, OpenVMS Alpha 7.1, -des
> configure. During the build I got the following error:
>
> MCR Sys$Disk:[]miniperl.exe "-I[.lib]" [.vms]gen_shrfls.pl -f gen_shrfls.opt
> Fatal VMS error (status=114762) at DISK8:[BERRYC.PERL-5_6_0]VMS.C;2, line 5620 at
>[.vms]gen_shrfls.pl line 59.
> %RMS-E-DNF, directory not found
> -NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000
> %MMK-F-ERRUPD, error status %X0001C04A occurred when updating target PERLSHR_XTRAS.TS
>
> For some reason a return of RMS$_DNF is not considered to be in the ENOENT
> family after calling sys$check_access in cando_by_name(). I'm pretty sure
> it should be (in fact I have a distinct memory of patching this before, see
> <http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/vmsperl/2000-03/msg00218.html>).
Could well be; I never applied that particular patch since the problem
never arose for me, but will change the web page to mention it.
> Starting with a clean extract from the tarball, I reapplied Charles's three
> patches and mine. The configure and build went smoothly. The test suite
> says that it passes all tests, but it may not be completely telling the
> truth because I see the following error messages sprinkled in the test output:
>
> [.lib]vmsfspec..........ok
> %SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort
> %SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort
> [.lib]vmsish............ok
>
> [.op]join...............ok
> Can't find string terminator "]" anywhere before EOF at -e line 1.
> Can't find string terminator "]" anywhere before EOF at -e line 1.
> [.op]lex_assign.........ok
Both of these are okay... the test suite is purposefully generating
errors to see that they are handled properly. If there wasn't a
(modified by the piping patch) "set message/no..." in vms/test.com,
you'd see a LOT of %SYSTEM-F-ABORT's from similar tests.
It's only the few that slips past redirection of STDERR that make it
to the log file.
> I noticed when applying the vmspipe patch that the offsets were rather
> large. This makes me wonder if I am missing 22 + 291 lines of important stuff:
>
> patching file vms/vms.c
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 919 (offset -22 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 1038 (offset -22 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 1097 (offset -22 lines).
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 2034 (offset -22 lines).
> Hunk #10 succeeded at 2121 (offset -22 lines).
> Hunk #12 succeeded at 2157 (offset -22 lines).
> Hunk #13 succeeded at 6164 (offset -291 lines).
>
No, it just means that the patch had to shift 22 lines earlier with
respect to its "canonical" position. Since the hunk succeeded, then
it found the right context around the changed code.
--
Drexel University \V --Chuck Lane
----------------->--------*------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(215) 895-1545 / \ Particle Physics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAX: (215) 895-5934 /~~~~~~~~~~~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
