Mail #13606

Back to main page of archive

Previous mail   Next mail   Unformatted/full headers
Overview  10 days   Subject   Date   Thread   Author  

From: Frank Heckenbach
Subject: New (gpc-20060325)
Date: 19 May 2006, 15:45:06

Gert Doering wrote:

> I just tried it on AIX 5.3, with gcc-3.4.6, and the result is sort of
> "mixed":
> 
> There is one line that needs to be changed in gcc/p/test/test_run,
> because otherwise I'll get an error from the shell (in make check):
> 
> old:
> 
> echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo "(using GP)"; fi`"
> 
> new: 
> 
> echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo \"(using GP)\"; fi`"

What's that? The original line is:

echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo "(using GP)"; fi`"

Perhaps you unintentionally duplicated a part of it (from the
beginning to the first "[")?

So I assume it should be changed to:

echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo \"(using GP)\"; fi`"

> (the change is that "(using GP)" needs extra quotes, otherwise the shell
> will complain - this is with AIX' ksh, but as far as I know, recent bash
> versions will be similarily picky)

Not AFAICS:

# bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.1.0(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# echo "`echo "foo"`"
foo

I think it's not so much about being picky, but supporting a
slightly extended syntax ("" within `` pairs, while ksh apparently
considers the first unquoted " to be the closing one without regard
to nesting). But anyway, the extra \'s don't hurt bash (and I hope
no other shell either).

> After that, the test suite starts, but *all* test programs fail:
> 
> "gmake pascal.check-long" explains what is going wrong:
> 
> Test Run By gd on 2006-05-19 13:43:03
> Native configuration is powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 (hilb31)
> /s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/xgpc -B/s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/ 20060325, based on gcc-3.4.6, flags: -g -O3 -W -Wall -Wno-unused   
> GPC-TEST-BEGIN
> ==========================
> TEST    abso1.pas:      cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6/units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> cc1: warning: command line option "-fno-unit-path" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> cc1: warning: command line option "-fautobuild" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../rts" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> cc1: warning: command line option "-fexecutable-path=." is valid for Pascal but not for C
> OK
>
> I'm not sure how to proceed here.  Why is it calling cc1?  Why is it passing
> options that the backend doesn't like?  Is this something that gcc-3.4.6
> has changed?

For debugging, you could insert an echo statement in test_run, to
find out how exactly it invokes GPC, then try this command-line
manually, and if it still fails, play with the options to find out
what's causing this.

The relevant line for most test programs (including abso1) is:

    if { $PC_WITH_FLAGS -Werror "$1"; } 2>&1; then

Note there are some similar looking lines, this is line 254. So you
could put before it:

    echo $PC_WITH_FLAGS -Werror "$1"

> Compiling a simple "hello,world" program works, with no warnings:
> 
> gd@hilb31:/tmp> gpc -Wall -o hello hello.pas   
> gd@hilb31:/tmp> ./hello                        
> Hello, World

BTW, you made sure this is the newly installed GPC here, not an
older version, did you?

Frank

Previous mail   Next mail   Unformatted/full headers
Overview  10 days   Subject   Date   Thread   Author  

Replies

In reply to

Back to main page of archive

Note: This page contains information that does not originate from the owner of this web site, but from the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such information. Any use of that infomation requires the consent of the respective author.

Where WWW addresses (URLs) in the mails archived are marked as hyperlinks, this is only for the comfort of the reader. The content of the web pages linked to like this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the owner of this web site or of the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such web pages. Those pages are explicitly not to be considered as part of the content of this page, but merely as references.

This page was created by Crystal 0.999 (Linux 2.4.27/i686).