home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.sys5.r4:487 comp.windows.x:18992
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.windows.x
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!pascal.cs.psu.edu!richmond
- From: richmond@pascal.cs.psu.edu (Matt Richmond)
- Subject: Re: Compiling X Sources Under Dell SVR4
- Message-ID: <BxJ9JD.JwA@cs.psu.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pascal.cs.psu.edu
- Organization: Surely you jest
- References: <tkevans.720636766@eplrx7.es.dupont.com> <RANDY.92Nov3170935@dsndata.dsndata.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:54:49 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <RANDY.92Nov3170935@dsndata.dsndata.com> randy@dsndata.dsndata.com (Randy Terbush) writes:
- >>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Evans <tkevans@eplrx7.es.dupont.com> writes:
- >
- > Tim> I've just started trying to cpile X stuff under Dell SVR4,
- > Tim> Issue 2.2 and am consistently finding that Makefiles generated
- > Tim> with xmkmf, setting "CC = cc -Xa", inevitably fail to compile
- > Tim> the source. In each case, a string of similar "syntax errors"
- > Tim> referring to standard system include files are generated. If,
- > Tim> howerver, I redefine the CC macro in the Makefiles, the stuff
- > Tim> generally compiles OK, or at least doesn't generate the
- > Tim> spurious syntax errors.
- >
- > Tim> Is this something Dell-specific? SVR4-specific? The 'xmkmf'
- > Tim> man page says:
- >
- >As I understand (from Dell), they have an "internal" version of 'gcc'
- >call 'cc' which will accept the '-Xa' etc. arguments used by 'cc'. For
- >some unknown reason, Dell felt that they needed to provide X11R5 so
- >that it appears to be compiled by 'cc' and therefore uses 'cc' when
- >using 'xmkmf'.
- >
- >IMHO - The best way to fix this, is to modify
- >/usr/X5/lib/X11/config/x386.cf to force the use of gcc for CcCmd.
- >
- OK, so this enables gcc to be the default compiler used by xmkmf.
- Now is there a way to get -Xa for gcc? I've been getting all
- sorts of compilation errors because gcc uses the '.so' libraries.
- Thanks.
-
- --Matt Richmond
-