From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6825 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2002 15:32:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 6805 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2002 15:32:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ex02.idirect.net) (208.226.76.48) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2002 15:32:26 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: autoconf issues [often when upgrading from 2.13->2.53a] Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Harig, Mark A." To: "Nicholas Wourms" , X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg01857.txt.bz2 Yes, autoconf uses sed many, many times. What is often possible is to narrow down which one by searching in 'configure' for the text message that 'configure' generates at the time that the script hangs, e.g., "Checking for GNU c compiler..." Sometimes you may need to do this several times. The better approach is to have a firm understanding of the layers of abstraction that autoconf builds on top of m4 and automake builds on top of autoconf, etc. but we're trying the "brute-force-examine-the-assembly-language" approach. 'config.log' is sometimes helpful in providing clues about what might be causing the problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Wourms [mailto:nwourms@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 8:58 PM > To: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: RE: autoconf issues [often when upgrading from 2.13->2.53a] >=20 >=20 > Mark, >=20 > Are you aware of how many instances of sed autoconf runs, let alone > libtool? I'll post the statement for the original issue this thread > describes, but as for anything else, that will be more difficult.=20 > Unfortunately TeX is very convoluted in it's own way, so trying to > figure out what pdfTeX is doing with sed is like searching for a > needle in the haystack. I'll see what I can do. >=20 > Cheers, > Nicholas > > I'm using Win2K.=20=20 > >=20 > > I'm pretty reluctant to point the finger at 'sed', but > > unfortunately I > > don't have any more clues at this time. Can you add 'set -xv' to > > the > > generated configure script at the place in the code where 'sed' is > > called, and post the result? That, along with the input stream, > > could > > help to debug that problem. Also, it would help to know what > > configure.in statements are generating the corresponding code in > > the > > generated configure script, if you're able to identify those > > statements. > >=20 > > As usual, three basics are needed before the problem can be > > debugged: > >=20 > > 1. The command(s) that are "causing" the problem. > > 2. The results you expected. > > 3. The results you got. > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nicholas Wourms [mailto:nwourms@yahoo.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:55 PM > > > To: cygwin@cygwin.com > > > Subject: RE: autoconf issues [often when upgrading from > > 2.13->2.53a] > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > --- "Harig, Mark A." wrote: > > > > Have you tried downgrading to the stable tools (2.13) to see if > > the > > > > problem is still occurring, or is that not an option (i.e, the > > > > configure.in requires 2.53)? > > > > I had a problem recently where it appeared that sed was running > > in > > > > an > > > > infinite loop. When I downgraded to the stable tools, the > > problem > > > > disappeared. > > >=20 > > > Unfortunately I have to use 2.53, otherwise libtool will not > > build > > > the dll's properly. You hit the nail right on the head, there is > > > something awefully wierd going on, and I think sed is at the > > center > > > of it. Why just the other day I was trying to use texi2pdf, and > > > wouldn't you know it sed was stuck in an infinite loop. What OS > > are > > > you running? My initial opinion is that the sed is experiencing > > > bit-rot. It hasn't been updated since 2000 (the code itself > > since > > > '98), you know. The problem is that this is so random, there's > > no > > > easy way to tell for sure. I just have a hunch at this point... >=20 >=20 > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better > http://health.yahoo.com >=20 > -- > 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/ >=20 >=20 -- 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/