Re: cc1plus errors

Re: cc1plus errors

[Nathan .]

Thanks a lot Phil. It was the "-m" option. And yes -pthreads does work. It 
was a typo I was doing. "-pthread" without s.
Also I could not find any of these options in the man pages of g++ on my 
system. Perhaps it is old. If you refer me to online man page for gcc/g++.

By the way I still need to archive all the .o files. The -xar ,  -xarch=v8a 
etc options dont work with g++ . What is the alternative.

Thanks a ton again!
-Nathan


>From: Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com>
>To: "Nathan ." <snmptoddler@hotmail.com>
>CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>Subject: Re: cc1plus errors
>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:58:47 -0400
>
>On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:55:39PM +0000, Nathan . wrote:
> > ===========errors==================================================
> > /usr/local/bin/g++ -I/usr/openwin/include -I../xobj  -I.
> > -I/opt/SUNWmotif/share/include -Dsun -D_REENTRANT -m   -c  button.cc
> > cc1plus: Invalid option `-c'
>
>Probably because "-m" is not an option, and it's getting confused.
>
>
> > #1. I've no idea where the "c" option is coming. It is not specified in 
>the
> > Makefile. Does the make utility puts it since I'm trying to create a
> > library.
>
>You need to take a closer look at the makefile, and get some advice on
>what is involved in the "seperate compilation" model used in C and C++.
>
>
> > #3. What is the valid multithreaded option in g++ flags. I tried 
>-pthread,
> > doesnt work.
>
>Try -pthreads, or look in the manual.
>
>
>Phil
>
>--
>I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. 
>"How
>not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
>                                                  - Edsger Dijkstra, 
>1930-2002




_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldÂ’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Re: cc1plus errors

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Nathan . wrote:

> Thanks a lot Phil. It was the "-m" option. And yes -pthreads does work. It
> was a typo I was doing. "-pthread" without s.

Actually, on GNU/Linux system, it's spelled "-pthread" like you
did.  Maybe "-pthread" can be offered as a synonym to
"-pthreads" on Solaris for interoperability reasons?

brgds, H-P

Re: cc1plus errors

[Phil Edwards]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:03:07PM +0000, Nathan . wrote:
> Also I could not find any of these options in the man pages of g++ on my 
> system. Perhaps it is old. If you refer me to online man page for gcc/g++.

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/

> By the way I still need to archive all the .o files. The -xar ,  -xarch=v8a 
> etc options dont work with g++ . What is the alternative.

Those are Sun options, not GCC options.  Try "man ar" instead.

Phil

-- 
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Re: cc1plus errors

[Phil Edwards]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:25:28PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Nathan . wrote:
> 
> > Thanks a lot Phil. It was the "-m" option. And yes -pthreads does work. It
> > was a typo I was doing. "-pthread" without s.
> 
> Actually, on GNU/Linux system, it's spelled "-pthread" like you
> did.  Maybe "-pthread" can be offered as a synonym to
> "-pthreads" on Solaris for interoperability reasons?

And on other systems it's -mthread, or it used to be.  And some platforms
know about multiple threading options.

The goal of whoever "designed" the rat's nest of threading options seems
to have been to make the spelling of the option(s) as close as possible
to the equivalent option(s) of the native compiler.  Thus the lack of
consistency across platforms.


Phil

-- 
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Make -pthread the generic Posix-threads option for gcc (was: Re: cc1plus errors)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:25:28PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > Maybe "-pthread" can be offered as a synonym to
> > "-pthreads" on Solaris for interoperability reasons?
>
> And on other systems it's -mthread, or it used to be.  And some platforms
> know about multiple threading options.
>
> The goal of whoever "designed" the rat's nest of threading options seems
> to have been to make the spelling of the option(s) as close as possible
> to the equivalent option(s) of the native compiler.  Thus the lack of
> consistency across platforms.

Well, GNU/Linux has no (more so) native compiler, and it has the
largest installed base (he says, blatantly ignoring to check up
on that), so I think offering "-pthread" as the generic gcc
option to enable Posix-threads would be useful.  At least it'd
be more useful than throwing up ones hands ;-) at the maze of
phread-options all alike.

brgds, H-P

Re: Make -pthread the generic Posix-threads option for gcc (was: Re: cc1plus errors)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:

[...]

| Well, GNU/Linux has no (more so) native compiler, and it has the
| largest installed base (he says, blatantly ignoring to check up
| on that), so I think offering "-pthread" as the generic gcc
| option to enable Posix-threads would be useful.

I'm highly supportive of that effort -- it surely would simplify
things.

Thanks,

-- Gaby

Re: cc1plus errors

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:

| On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Nathan . wrote:
| 
| > Thanks a lot Phil. It was the "-m" option. And yes -pthreads does work. It
| > was a typo I was doing. "-pthread" without s.
| 
| Actually, on GNU/Linux system, it's spelled "-pthread" like you
| did.  Maybe "-pthread" can be offered as a synonym to
| "-pthreads" on Solaris for interoperability reasons?

Yes!

-- Gaby

Re: Make -pthread the generic Posix-threads option for gcc (was: Re: cc1plus errors)

[Phil Edwards]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> | Well, GNU/Linux has no (more so) native compiler, and it has the
> | largest installed base (he says, blatantly ignoring to check up
> | on that), so I think offering "-pthread" as the generic gcc
> | option to enable Posix-threads would be useful.
> 
> I'm highly supportive of that effort -- it surely would simplify
> things.

At this point, I think anything would help.  :-)  Someone told me Linux
was about to gain at least one more major threading library (linux-threads
or some such from IBM).

I'd like to scrap the whole thing and standardize --threads=<model>, where
the choices for <model> might vary across platforms, but the spelling of
"--threads" wouldn't.

Phil

-- 
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Re: Make -pthread the generic Posix-threads option for gcc (was: Re: cc1plus errors)

[kwall]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 07:39:13PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > | Well, GNU/Linux has no (more so) native compiler, and it has the
> > | largest installed base (he says, blatantly ignoring to check up
> > | on that), so I think offering "-pthread" as the generic gcc
> > | option to enable Posix-threads would be useful.
> > 
> > I'm highly supportive of that effort -- it surely would simplify
> > things.
> 
> At this point, I think anything would help.  :-)  Someone told me Linux
> was about to gain at least one more major threading library (linux-threads
> or some such from IBM).

There's a project denominated Next Generation POSIX Threads at IBM
(http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/pthreads/)
intended to replace linux-threads.

Kurt
-- 
If someone had told me I would be Pope one day, I would have studied
harder.
		-- Pope John Paul I

Re: Make -pthread the generic Posix-threads option for gcc

[Florian Weimer]

kwall@kurtwerks.com writes:

> There's a project denominated Next Generation POSIX Threads at IBM
> (http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/pthreads/)
> intended to replace linux-threads.

And I believe a few people still use FSU Threads, which offer a
different aspect of POSIX conformance than other threading
implementations running on Linux.

And there is the new threading implementation for GNU libc...