News Group Posts

makefiles confused by gcc on osr5

From: "Brian K. White" <linut@squonk.net>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SSH on SCO 5.0.5
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 03:10:11 -0400
Message-ID: <390E7F53.D62240DB@squonk.net> 
References: <390DC05E.C616D676@barroco.com.br>
<20000501220810.E26677@jpradley.jpr.com>
<390E525B.35E22B6A@bellsouth.net>
<sgsljtej1g226@corp.supernews.com>
<390E5BD8.3FB6582C@bellsouth.net> 
Cache-Post-Path: firth.squonk.net!unknown@dialup-079.squonk.net

Geoff Bleau wrote:
> 
> Robert Lipe wrote:
> 
> > Geoff Bleau <geoffb@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >
> > >The gcc 2.9.5pl1 release and the needed binutils on the SCO site
> > >are incompatible ( binutils still has endless references to -belf insted
> > >of -melf )
> >
> > GCC 2.95 does not need binutils.  In fact, binutils (especially the
> > assembler and linker) are _less_ compatible with GCC than the free SCO
> > native assembler and linker.
> 
> Well - I followed the instructions on the SCO site - and installed
> gcc 2.9.5 along with the Linker and Application Libraries from
> the SCO cd ( all this on SCO 5.0.4 )
> 
> Then tried to compile tcp_wrappers 7.6.
> 
> Bombed - complained about a missing ' ar ' file.
> 
> When I asked back in this group ( or gcc,help ) - it was
> suggested that I needed binutils - as that would be the source
> of ' ar '.
> 
> When I tried to install the binutils from the SCO site - it barfed
> due to all the references to -belf instead of -melf ( catch 22 ?? )
> 
> So - what is the REAL answer to be able to compile tcp_wrappers ???
> 
> G
> 
> --
> " Bigamy is having one wife too many.
>       Monogamy is the same "
> 
> Geoff Bleau geoffb@bellsouth.net
> 
>  http://www.flsoft.com

the answer is edit the makefile. you will find you almost always have to
edit the makefile. get use to it. No one is writing makefiles for the odd
case of gcc-on-OSR5. if the makefile author (actually the autoconf author)
is even aware of OSR5 they almost always have a section that is correct for
the native compiler. the other sections are correct for gcc on Linux
usually, which is not the same as gcc on OSR5.

the most complete makefile I've seen that actually has complete and correct
seperate sections for all the different possible combinations of which
compiler on which OS, is the one found in c-kermit.  ... although even
there, I seem to recall having to edit that one too, to take into account
that gcc had been using -melf on osr5 up untill recently, and now it uses
-belf. or maybe it's the other way around... and I think there was some
other problem with the osr5.0.5-net-gcc-curses stanza too but I forget what.

basically you need to "man cc" "man ld"  as well as "man gcc" and "man ld"
from a linux box, figure out what system your makefile is assuming, and
translate the gcc and ld options.  From what you said, it's probably trying
to handle gcc on osr5, but the old gcc which had a few options modified to
be similar to the native cc. which means your makefile aspired to be better
than most, and thus perversely is one of the most non-intuitive to figure
out unless you give up all hope that any makefile should work out of the
box. If you are simply resigned to checking over every makefile for
correctness with current gcc on osr5, then you never have this problem.

do a net search for "gcc SCO" and find some pages by Robert Lipe to see some
of the main things that always need to be fixed on cc/gcc command lines

also note that that document is itself a little out of date in that it has
the -melf/-belf backwards, although then again, it is correct for the
version of gcc that is referenced in that document. that's just not
gcc-2.95. the other stuff all applies.

-- 
Brian K. White                   http://www.squonk.net/users/linut
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx  Linux SCO  Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD  #callahans Satriani

Comments?

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.