public inbox for cygwin@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* RE: Binutils and GCC
@ 2001-09-18 13:50 David T. Schneider
  2001-09-18 14:22 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: David T. Schneider @ 2001-09-18 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin

I have managed to revert to cygwin 1.3.2 and now both the ARM cross
builds and the native builds are running.  As far as I can determine,
the cygwin package is the only thing different between the two
environments.  Are there any suggestions on how to isolate the cause of
the failures?

David T. Schneider
Chief Technical Officer
SoC Solutions, L.L.C.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Doug Johnson [ mailto:finson@acm.org ] 
Sent:	Tuesday, September 18, 2001 2:47 AM
To:	cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject:	RE: Binutils and GCC 

I am having a similar experience.  I built a cross compiling gcc for 
W98->MIPS last week using 1.3.2.  Today I rebuilt my system from bare
metal 
to run W2K.  Everything else is fine, but I cannot compile binutils
using 
1.3.3.  I get the same error that David is getting.

I have tried to revert to 1.3.2, but that doesn't work because for some 
reason setup now believes that the cygwin package should be 
cygwin-1.3.2-1.tar.bz2 (rather than cygwin-1.3.2-1.tar.gz, which is what
I 
have from my previous install).

So I'm kind of toast for the moment.  Any guidance would be helpful.

Thanks.

Doug Johnson

Jason Kajita  wrote:

>David T. Schneider" <dschneider at socsolutions dot com> wrote:
>... When I try to build the tools to compile ARM code on CygWin
>following the direction supplied for building ecos I get:
>/usr/src/binutils-2.10.1/libiberty/strerror.c:461: conflicting types
for
>`sys_errlist'
>/usr/include/sys/errno.h:23: previous declaration of `sys_errlist'
>when the make reaches /usr/src/binutils-2.10.1/libiberty/strerror.c
>
>I've also tried performing a native build for gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0.1
>and get the same error.  ...
>
>=======================================================================
=
>Further information on the issue:
>I have believe that this problem may be related to the 1.3.3
cygwin1.dll
>release.  When I revert back to 1.3.2-1, I do not get the error.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GCC [LONG and mildly OT]
@ 2001-09-20  8:24 Christopher Faylor
  2001-09-20 12:30 ` Binutils and GCC Christopher Currie
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-20  8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin, gcc-bugs; +Cc: bug-binutils

On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:37:27AM -0400, Christopher Currie wrote:
>Sorry for the cross-posting, but this regards a bug in libiberty and I
>don't know whether gcc or binutils has ownership of it.

If you are going to take it upon yourself to take a cygwin problem into
other mailing lists, you really should check out the CVS sources to see
if this has actually been solved or not.

>On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 11:47:01AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> It is just C source code we're talking about, right?  You have an editor?
>> Look at the place where the errors are coming from and make an
>> educated guess about fixing it.
>> 
>> What is the worse that can happen?  If you screw up do you think that
>> this will cause gcc to subtly miscompile your code so that all of the
>> add instructions are turned into sub instructions or something?  That's
>> not going to happen.
>> 
>> You are all programmers right?  Inspect the code.  Invest five minutes
>> worth of analysis into the problem.
>> 
>> If this is too tough for you, try removing the offending file from the
>> makefile or building from CVS sources.
>> 
>> I can't believe that there are three messages on this subject from people
>> who are apparently programmers without one suggested fix.
>
><rant>
>Probably because most of them are busy trying use the tools to do the
>work they get paid to do, rather than spend the time fixing the tools.
>Since backing out to the previous version allows them to do that, they've
>done what's expected of them and logged a bug report that (IMHO) helps
>a maintainer (who, I would think, either has volunteered or is paid to
>do such things) track down what might be causing the problem.
></rant>

Some points:

1) No one is paid to support this code.

2) No one has volunteered to support other people's efforts to compile the
   code.

3) No one was asking for a definitive fix.  I was basically commenting on
   how strange it was that people who are supposed to be programmers were
   stalled for days over a problem that could have been solved by an #ifdef.
   The problem has been fixed definitively in sources.redhat.com CVS sources
   for weeks.  However, that fix won't magically propagate to older source
   tar balls.  So, a brain-dead simple fix to strerror.c is required.

   Either that or you can use the solution THAT I ALREADY SUGGESTED.

4) If someone is building the code on their own rather than using the binaries
   that *I did* volunteer to provide then it is either part of their job or
   they have some other reason for doing it.  It's not part of my job in
   any way to track down their problems for them.  I could build the programs
   just fine when I released them.  If that changes over time, I'm not going
   to make a new release just to satisfy people who want to build things on
   their own.  If someone needs to do that then they really should know what
   they are doing.  Either that or they should pay someone to support them.
   Or, they could try to use the *latest* versions of the sources where any
   problems would be solved.

5) Even if we were to buy into your theory that I have either volunteered
   to help you build the tools or your even more inane theory that I am
   actually being *paid* to help people for free; merely reporting a problem
   with no more analysis than a cut and paste of an error message is hardly
   a way to help me out.  Even if it was a vague help, the majority of this
   thread was comprised of "I am stalled too! I need a fix!" messages which
   conveyed no useful information.

I haven't looked at your patch.  You seem competent so I assume that it
solves your problem.

I also assume that a patch won't help most of the original posters who
were complaining in the cygwin mailing list since it will require them
to learn about both patch and autoconf.  However, maybe there are some
other previously silent but competent people like you who were also
silently fuming over the injustice of not being able to compile their
own version of the tools and maybe they will be able to use the solution
that you provided.

Or, you could always just remove strerror from the Makefile like I
originally suggested...

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* RE: Binutils and GCC
@ 2001-09-18  0:05 Doug Johnson
  2001-09-18  8:46 ` Christopher Faylor
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Doug Johnson @ 2001-09-18  0:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin

I am having a similar experience.  I built a cross compiling gcc for 
W98->MIPS last week using 1.3.2.  Today I rebuilt my system from bare metal 
to run W2K.  Everything else is fine, but I cannot compile binutils using 
1.3.3.  I get the same error that David is getting.

I have tried to revert to 1.3.2, but that doesn't work because for some 
reason setup now believes that the cygwin package should be 
cygwin-1.3.2-1.tar.bz2 (rather than cygwin-1.3.2-1.tar.gz, which is what I 
have from my previous install).

So I'm kind of toast for the moment.  Any guidance would be helpful.

Thanks.

Doug Johnson

Jason Kajita  wrote:

>David T. Schneider" <dschneider at socsolutions dot com> wrote:
>... When I try to build the tools to compile ARM code on CygWin
>following the direction supplied for building ecos I get:
>/usr/src/binutils-2.10.1/libiberty/strerror.c:461: conflicting types for
>`sys_errlist'
>/usr/include/sys/errno.h:23: previous declaration of `sys_errlist'
>when the make reaches /usr/src/binutils-2.10.1/libiberty/strerror.c
>
>I've also tried performing a native build for gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0.1
>and get the same error.  ...
>
>========================================================================
>Further information on the issue:
>I have believe that this problem may be related to the 1.3.3 cygwin1.dll
>release.  When I revert back to 1.3.2-1, I do not get the error.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* RE: Binutils and GCC
@ 2001-09-17 17:24 Jason.Kajita
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason.Kajita @ 2001-09-17 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin

David T. Schneider" <dschneider at socsolutions dot com> wrote:
... When I try to build the tools to compile ARM code on CygWin
following the direction supplied for building ecos I get:
/usr/src/binutils-2.10.1/libiberty/strerror.c:461: conflicting types for
`sys_errlist'
/usr/include/sys/errno.h:23: previous declaration of `sys_errlist'
when the make reaches /usr/src/binutils-2.10.1/libiberty/strerror.c

I've also tried performing a native build for gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0.1
and get the same error.  ...

========================================================================
Further information on the issue:
I have believe that this problem may be related to the 1.3.3 cygwin1.dll
release.  When I revert back to 1.3.2-1, I do not get the error.


Jason Kajita


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-20 12:30 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-09-18 13:50 Binutils and GCC David T. Schneider
2001-09-18 14:22 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2001-09-18 15:43   ` Christopher Faylor
2001-09-18 15:57     ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2001-09-18 16:36       ` Christopher Faylor
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-20  8:24 Binutils and GCC [LONG and mildly OT] Christopher Faylor
2001-09-20 12:30 ` Binutils and GCC Christopher Currie
2001-09-18  0:05 Doug Johnson
2001-09-18  8:46 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-09-17 17:24 Jason.Kajita

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).