Very Computer

by **Martin Maciasz** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:51:58

I tried compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] on several debian
boxes. The build process always died with errors (I can't paste
them here, because I have no access to any of these boxes right
now). I've been told that this is a problem with the compiler and
ksh93 needs to be patched to compile cleanly with gcc 2.95.x.
Unfortunately I can't find any hint to the patch. Can somebody
point me to the patch?

Cheers
Martin

by **Cyrille Lefevr** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:36:50

> I tried compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] on several debian
> boxes. The build process always died with errors (I can't paste

wait a moment, a new release would be out this month (june 2001).

Cyrille.
--

Supprimer "%no-spam" et ".invalid" pour me repondre. | about who it chooses
Remove "%no-spam" and ".invalid" to answer me back. | to be friends with.

by **Martin Maciasz** » Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:31:28

>> I tried compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] on several debian
>> boxes. The build process always died with errors (I can't paste

> wait a moment, a new release would be out this month (june 2001).

How do you know that? Is there some kind of ksh93 mailing list? I
couldn't find any reference to it on the kornshell.com page.

Cheers
Martin

by **Cyrille Lefevr** » Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:21:57

> >> I tried compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] on several debian
> >> boxes. The build process always died with errors (I can't paste

> > wait a moment, a new release would be out this month (june 2001).

> How do you know that? Is there some kind of ksh93 mailing list? I
> couldn't find any reference to it on the kornshell.com page.

I've submited a bug report a few weeks ago. the answer was it was
fixed but not yet available 'til june. that's all ;^)

Cyrille.
--

Supprimer "%no-spam" et ".invalid" pour me repondre. | about who it chooses
Remove "%no-spam" and ".invalid" to answer me back. | to be friends with.

by **Bruce Woodwa** » Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:06:29

>I tried compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] on several debian
>boxes. The build process always died with errors (I can't paste
>them here, because I have no access to any of these boxes right
>now). I've been told that this is a problem with the compiler and
>ksh93 needs to be patched to compile cleanly with gcc 2.95.x.

I can't tell you about patches. All I want to say is that 2.95.x
seems to be broken either on debian or just in general. I have gone
back to 2.7.2 until I test 3.0.

I am sure to get flamed for this, however many problem with my
code, which was repeatable disappeared once I started using 2.7.

Just my 2 cents.

/bruce.

by **Marc D. Willia** » Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:43:57

>>I tried compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] on several debian
>>boxes. The build process always died with errors (I can't paste
>>them here, because I have no access to any of these boxes right
>>now). I've been told that this is a problem with the compiler and
>>ksh93 needs to be patched to compile cleanly with gcc 2.95.x.

> I can't tell you about patches. All I want to say is that 2.95.x
> seems to be broken either on debian or just in general. I have gone
> back to 2.7.2 until I test 3.0.

Ksh93 built fine for me with gcc 2.95.2 (with some Athlon patches
though) on Slackware Linux. I manually followed the Slack build script
provided with the source (nothing special - designed for making a
package of just the shell and libs - other utils aren't installed).

Side note:
I noticed that SHELL=/bin/bash1 is used with the make command in the
script.
Is there some kind of problem using bash 2 when building ksh93?

Marc

Very Computer

compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] fails

compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] fails

compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] fails

compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] fails

compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] fails

compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] fails

compiling ksh93 with gcc 2.95.[23] fails