Re: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

Re: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

[mike stump]

> From: "Mackinlay, Patrick" <patrick.mackinlay@kjv.com.au>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:06:42 +0800 

> In my work trying to build gcc with an old Intergraph InterPro as a host,
> I've run into a problem with file name length with two of the files added to
> the gcc-3.0 (that weren't a problem with 2.95.3). The two files
> (unwind-dw2-fde.c and unwind-dw2-fde.h) unfortunately overflow the
> 14-character max filename length of the host OS, leaving only one after a
> full tar -xf, and causing a build dependency problem later on.

> Although there are other >14 character filenames produced at various times
> (the host descriptor, in fact, is clipper-intergraph-clix), these have not
> yet caused a problem. Would it be too much to ask that the files in question
> could have their filenames shortened? It seems like a small price to pay to
> allow future build success on these older Unixen...

Would building on an nfs volume fix this problem?  If it does, that's
what I'd recommend.

If not, I'd recommend building via a cross compiler.  Should be fairly
trivial, see the documentation for instructions.

Re: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

[Matthew Hudson]

If its broken. Fix it. This guy has a valid issue. Why the hell can't
you just change the names? Trying to build via nfs on a system that old
would be PAINFUL. I've only been on this list for the last few days
and my god. You people don't want to do anything but give alternatives
as opposed to actually just fixing the problem. If you want him to
provide a patch then ASK HIM TO. I've been reading many of the gcc
mailing lists over the last few days and I see no protocol for
actually getting things done except when you simply bitch about it.
Not all of us are familiar with the internals of gcc and those of us
who want to be are turned off/away by the complete lack of assistance
on simple problems that would take someone with CVS write access about
30 seconds to fix. I know we all have other things to do and those
things can take much time but at least tell us how we can get the
problems we are having resolved. I do know that everything that worked
up to 2.8.1 is now completely broken in dgux on m88k. Various hacks
here and there in what looks like an attempt to make the code compile
(as opposed to actually work). If someone can point me to a page that
tells me what the protocol is for actually getting a problem fixed and
not ignored I'd really like that. Sorry about the rant but sheesh
people tell us what to do so if all else fails we can try to fix the
problem and submit the changes to the correct people/place.

-Matt


mike stump wrote:
> 
> > From: "Mackinlay, Patrick" <patrick.mackinlay@kjv.com.au>
> > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:06:42 +0800
> 
> > In my work trying to build gcc with an old Intergraph InterPro as a host,
> > I've run into a problem with file name length with two of the files added to
> > the gcc-3.0 (that weren't a problem with 2.95.3). The two files
> > (unwind-dw2-fde.c and unwind-dw2-fde.h) unfortunately overflow the
> > 14-character max filename length of the host OS, leaving only one after a
> > full tar -xf, and causing a build dependency problem later on.
> 
> > Although there are other >14 character filenames produced at various times
> > (the host descriptor, in fact, is clipper-intergraph-clix), these have not
> > yet caused a problem. Would it be too much to ask that the files in question
> > could have their filenames shortened? It seems like a small price to pay to
> > allow future build success on these older Unixen...
> 
> Would building on an nfs volume fix this problem?  If it does, that's
> what I'd recommend.
> 
> If not, I'd recommend building via a cross compiler.  Should be fairly
> trivial, see the documentation for instructions.

Re: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Matthew Hudson wrote:

> (as opposed to actually work). If someone can point me to a page that
> tells me what the protocol is for actually getting a problem fixed and
> not ignored I'd really like that. Sorry about the rant but sheesh

http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#support

Though this ought to be mentioning GNATS rather than gcc-bugs; OK to
commit the following patch?

Index: faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.168
diff -u -r1.168 faq.html
--- faq.html	2001/08/31 14:52:23	1.168
+++ faq.html	2001/09/07 05:51:57
@@ -197,12 +197,13 @@
     individuals providing support for GCC.  This alternative costs
     money, but is relatively likely to get results.</li>
 
-<li>Report the problem to gcc-bugs and hope that someone will be kind
+<li>Report the problem to the GCC GNATS bug tracking system
+    and hope that someone will be kind
     enough to fix it for you.  While this is certainly possible, and
     often happens, there is no guarantee that it will.  You should
-    not expect the same response from gcc-bugs that you would see
+    not expect the same response from this method that you would see
     from a commercial support organization since the people who read
-    gcc-bugs, if they choose to help you, will be volunteering their
+    GCC bug reports, if they choose to help you, will be volunteering their
     time.  This alternative will work best if you follow the directions
     on <a href="bugs.html">submitting bugreports</a>.</li>
 

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#support
>
> Though this ought to be mentioning GNATS rather than gcc-bugs; OK to
> commit the following patch?

I'd prefer this change...

> -<li>Report the problem to gcc-bugs and hope that someone will be kind
> +<li>Report the problem to the GCC GNATS bug tracking system

...to become a link to bugs.html (anchor text "Report the problem...").
With this tweak, the patch is fine.

Well spotted!

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

[mike stump]

> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 21:52:57 -0500
> From: Matthew Hudson <mhudson@home.com>

> If someone can point me to a page that tells me what the protocol is
> for actually getting a problem fixed and not ignored I'd really like
> that.

It's in the FAQ:

http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#support

RE: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

[Mackinlay, Patrick]

> Would building on an nfs volume fix this problem?  If it does, that's
> what I'd recommend.
> 
> If not, I'd recommend building via a cross compiler.  Should be fairly
> trivial, see the documentation for instructions.

Yes, it would/does fix the problem, and I've done this before with other
software. It would be better, IMHO, if the compiler could be built on the
native FS. The fact that this problem has only appeared since these two
files were added really makes me want to ask for them to be renamed before
it becomes more widespread. If this is too much to ask, just tell me and
I'll crawl back into my SVR3.2 hole ;)

Regards,
Pat Mackinlay
Kellogg Joint Venture

unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]

[Mackinlay, Patrick]

In my work trying to build gcc with an old Intergraph InterPro as a host,
I've run into a problem with file name length with two of the files added to
the gcc-3.0 (that weren't a problem with 2.95.3). The two files
(unwind-dw2-fde.c and unwind-dw2-fde.h) unfortunately overflow the
14-character max filename length of the host OS, leaving only one after a
full tar -xf, and causing a build dependency problem later on.

Although there are other >14 character filenames produced at various times
(the host descriptor, in fact, is clipper-intergraph-clix), these have not
yet caused a problem. Would it be too much to ask that the files in question
could have their filenames shortened? It seems like a small price to pay to
allow future build success on these older Unixen...

Regards,
Pat Mackinlay
Kellogg Joint Venture