Very Computer

I want to make a C++ program and it gives me this: make not found. I am
quite newbee on solaris, but I think that if I set the bin dir of my forte
compiler in the path is should work. What is going on?

this is my PATH, it should be good not?:

$ echo $PATH
/opt/rational/releases/PurifyPlusFamily.2002a.06.00/sun4_solaris2/bin:/opt/v
bc4564/bin:/usr/dt/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ucb:/etc:.:/opt/forte/SUNWspro/bin

Quote:> I want to make a C++ program and it gives me this: make not found. I am
> quite newbee on solaris, but I think that if I set the bin dir of my forte
> compiler in the path is should work. What is going on?

> this is my PATH, it should be good not?:

> $ echo $PATH

/opt/rational/releases/PurifyPlusFamily.2002a.06.00/sun4_solaris2/bin:/opt/v

Quote:> bc4564/bin:/usr/dt/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ucb:/etc:.:/opt/forte/SUNWspro/bin

/usr/ccs/bin/make

Quote:> /usr/ccs/bin/make

Ok this works, but this makes 'make' a part of ccs, and may I then ask, as a
Solaris newbee, what is usr/ccs?

Marc

It's a bundled C compiler that Sun ships but nobody uses, however
getting make, ar, ranlib etc from there is pretty common still. You
might like to look into GNU make which is often found in /opt/sfw/bin
(optional freeware).
--
Chris Morgan

   "Not so bad offer to discuss about"

                - Best recent email spam subject line

Hmmm... talk about misinformation.
1. It is not a C compiler, meerly the collection of programming tools that
go with any compiler.
2. The sun compiler is not bundled, however you can find gcc on the 3rd
party cd-rom. (optional freeware).
3. The sun compiler has many advantages over gcc. (It often makes faster
executables. It has been better at 64-bit for longer.) But cost is not
one of the advantages. People do use the sun compilers.
4. Gnu make has its detractors as well. It has all sorts of `features'
that were likely caused by DOS not having a `real' shell.

Quote:>getting make, ar, ranlib etc from there is pretty common still. You
>might like to look into GNU make which is often found in /opt/sfw/bin
>(optional freeware).
>--
>Chris Morgan

>   "Not so bad offer to discuss about"

>            - Best recent email spam subject line

--
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot
bellenot <At/> math.fsu.edu
+1.850.644.7189 (4053fax)

Quote:> Hmmm... talk about misinformation.

Ok thank for the info Marc1917 Wentink

Ok, I originally wrote "it's the remnants of a C compiler" but I
decided to gloss over the details. /usr/ccs/bin contains ucbcc which
masquerades as a BSD style C compiler, but really uses SunPro cc. It
is true I had forgotten you do need the unbundled product (or gcc) to
get anywhere with C compilation. This guy HAS SunPro C so the effect
is the same.

Quote:> 2. The sun compiler is not bundled, however you can find gcc on the 3rd
> party cd-rom. (optional freeware).

I wasn't talking about that one - the guys said he has that and just
needs make.

Quote:> 3. The sun compiler has many advantages over gcc. (It often makes faster
> executables. It has been better at 64-bit for longer.) But cost is not
> one of the advantages. People do use the sun compilers.

Nobody was talking about gcc. Nobody denies people use Sun
compilers. I use Sun compilers.

Quote:> 4. Gnu make has its detractors as well. It has all sorts of `features'
> that were likely caused by DOS not having a `real' shell.

Yeah, whatever. I said he "might look into GNU make". It's much better
than Sun make in my opinion, but not in yours. Since it's free
software and ported all over the place, effort spent on learning its
peculiarities is effort well spent, unlike the peculiarities of Sun
make.

Chris

--
Chris Morgan

   "Not so bad offer to discuss about"

                - Best recent email spam subject line

Hmmm... masquerades? I'm not sure if I would put it that way.
/usr/ucb/cc [which is what I think you are calling ucbcc] is a shell
script which changes the order of include files to be more like that of
the old sun 4.x series of OS. While it does have the name cc, and it
calls the real `cc' if it can find it, it is meerly a script.

Quote:>> 4. Gnu make has its detractors as well. It has all sorts of `features'
>> that were likely caused by DOS not having a `real' shell.

>Yeah, whatever. I said he "might look into GNU make". It's much better
>than Sun make in my opinion, but not in yours. Since it's free
>software and ported all over the place, effort spent on learning its
>peculiarities is effort well spent, unlike the peculiarities of Sun
>make.

Hmmm... I didn't mean to imply that anyone should learn peculiarities
of any make. Indeed, it is often much better to stick with what is
common with every make. Generally speaking, it isn't too hard to
find such a common core.
--
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot
bellenot <At/> math.fsu.edu
+1.850.644.7189 (4053fax)

I think you're confusing the tail with the dog..  GNU make runs on
DOS, but DOS is not a major motivation for GNU make.  GNU make is
really intended for (and runs best on) POSIX systems like GNU/Linux
and Solaris.

GNU make is indeed finicky about things like backslashes, but that is
a property of the 'make' syntax, a syntax that predates DOS and that
is standardized by POSIX.

One major advantage of GNU make over Solaris make is that it runs
everywhere, so you don't need to worry about porting your makefiles.
Also, I find that in practice it runs considerably faster than Solaris
make, partly due to its ability to run jobs in parallel, and partly
because the GNU/Linux boxes I have access to are usually much faster
than the Solaris boxes I have access to.

OK Ill have to take your word for it that GNU/Linux version X.X.xx is POSIX
compliant : >

Quote:> GNU make is indeed finicky about things like backslashes, but that is
> a property of the 'make' syntax, a syntax that predates DOS and that
> is standardized by POSIX.
> One major advantage of GNU make over Solaris make is that it runs
> everywhere, so you don't need to worry about porting your makefiles.

Porting a makefile?? Why not simply write PORTABLE makefiles??
Then you dont "need" GNU make : >
True portable is somewhat relative (but at least make an EFFORT...)

Quote:> Also, I find that in practice it runs considerably faster than Solaris
> make, partly due to its ability to run jobs in parallel, and partly
> because the GNU/Linux boxes I have access to are usually much faster
> than the Solaris boxes I have access to.

Running jobs in parallel doesnt speed things up that much in my
admittedly limited experience. Anyway whats GNU/Linux doing in
this thread again exactly?? This guy was was using C++
and Forte.

The fact is that if do a lot of compiling and installing yourself
there is no such thing as a "One True Make". You usually
have to have:
make, gmake, smake and maybe one or two others sequestered away..
Older Sun compilers supplied their own make as well (pmake?) - dont know
about Forte.

My impression is that these sort of GNU make `features' are from the
time when there was no shell port for DOS and somebody (J.D. Delorie???)
did like to be able to run simple makefiles so he hacked GNU make to
run without shell even if shell special chars were present...

Quote:>GNU make is indeed finicky about things like backslashes, but that is
>a property of the 'make' syntax, a syntax that predates DOS and that
>is standardized by POSIX.

Well you are right, the make syntax predates even DOS by several years.

But I can tell you that I did also have problems with my 'smake' and
backslashes on DOS. These problems disappeared copletely after I did
modify smake to strictly follow POSIX syntax.

The problems only were related to auto-dependencies created by GCC
which emmits a mixture of slash and backslash in filenames.

Quote:>One major advantage of GNU make over Solaris make is that it runs
>everywhere, so you don't need to worry about porting your makefiles.
>Also, I find that in practice it runs considerably faster than Solaris
>make, partly due to its ability to run jobs in parallel, and partly
>because the GNU/Linux boxes I have access to are usually much faster
>than the Solaris boxes I have access to.

GNU make and smake seem to be the only really portable make programs
and as long as the POSIX make does not include the needed features
to allow portable make systems that work across different platforms,
you need to add features to make and use one of the portable make
programs if you do not like to suffer from problems of 'other people
make programs'.

--



URL:  http://www.fokus.fhd.de/usr/schilling    ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Historically this was the "compiler-independent" part of the "C
Compilation Subsystem" (hence ccs) supplied by AT&T as an add-on package
with Unix System V R2 and R3. By "compiler-independent" I mean that the
same tools - make, ar, as, nm and so on, were applicable to many
compiler front ends (so the C compiler generated assembler code which is
fed to as, while the f77 compiler also generated assembler code, which
was fed to the same as). A lot of the structure has changed since those
dear, dead days of yore, but the /usr/ccs/stuff still lives there for
"historical reasons".

--
Tony