Very Computer

by **Matthew Darc** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:46:50

hi,

I am am trying to compile kdenetwork 2.2.2

I run configure without any flags, which reports no errors at all.

when I run make all I get this error

g++ -DDW_DEVELOPMENT_VERSION -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -D_REENTRANT -D_REENTRA
NT -
O2 -fno-exceptions -fno-check-new -DQT_CLEAN_NAMESPACE -DQT_NO_COMPAT -DQT_N
O_AS
CII_CAST -c string.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/string.o
string.cpp: In method `void DwString::_replace (unsigned int, unsigned
int, const char *, unsigned int)':
string.cpp:1243: Internal compiler error in schedule_insns, at
haifa-sched.c:7065
Please submit a full bug report.
See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/> for instructions.
make[3]: *** [string.lo] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/usr/local/src/kde-2.2.2/kdenetwork-2.2.2/mimelib'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/usr/local/src/kde-2.2.2/kdenetwork-2.2.2/mimelib'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/kde-2.2.2/kdenetwork-2.2.2'
make: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2

When I run the last g++ command on its own which is

g++ -DDW_DEVELOPMENT_VERSION -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -D_REENTRANT -D_REENTRA
NT -
O2 -fno-exceptions -fno-check-new -DQT_CLEAN_NAMESPACE -DQT_NO_COMPAT -DQT_N
O_AS
CII_CAST -c string.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/string.o

I get the error

g++ -DDW_DEVELOPMENT_VERSION -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I. -D_REENTRANT -D_REENTRANT -O2 -fno-exceptions -fno-check-new -DQT_CLEAN
_NAM
ESPACE -DQT_NO_COMPAT -DQT_NO_ASCII_CAST -c string.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o
.libs/str
ing.o
g++: string.cpp: No such file or directory
g++: No input files

I would really like to get this working.

Any ideas ?

Matt.

Can anyone give me a bit of a better clue

by **Stephan Binne** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:18:05

> string.cpp:1243: Internal compiler error in schedule_insns, at haifa-sched.c:7065
> Please submit a full bug report.
> See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/> for instructions.
> I would really like to get this working.

Don't use a broken compiler, don't use RedHat. :-)

Bye,
Steve

by **Matthew Darc** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:26:18

not using redhat is good advice, so fair comment.

This is a test workstation and kde 2.2.2 on redhat has been requested.

Any suggestions on how to get this working ??

> > string.cpp:1243: Internal compiler error in schedule_insns, at
haifa-sched.c:7065
> > Please submit a full bug report.
> > See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/> for instructions.
> > I would really like to get this working.

> Don't use a broken compiler, don't use RedHat. :-)

> Bye,
> Steve

by **Rex Diete** » Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:45:46

Quote:> This is a test workstation and kde 2.2.2 on redhat has been requested.

> Any suggestions on how to get this working ??

Why not just install the erratas from RedHat instead of spreading FUD.

http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/rh72-errata.html

In particular, kde:
http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHEA-2001-158.html

by **Rex Diete** » Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:46:58

Quote:> Don't use a broken compiler, don't use RedHat. :-)

Please don't spread false information...
http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html

--
Rex Dieter
Computer System Administrator
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Nebraska Lincoln

by **Stephan Binne** » Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:06:56

>> Don't use a broken compiler, don't use RedHat. :-)
> Please don't spread false information...
> http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html

A compiler should *never* run into a "internal compiler" error, that
has nothing to do with if the input is standard compliant or not.

Bye,
Steve

by **Rex Diete** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:36:16

> >> Don't use a broken compiler, don't use RedHat. :-)
> > Please don't spread false information...
> > http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html

> A compiler should *never* run into a "internal compiler" error, that
> has nothing to do with if the input is standard compliant or not.

For the record, I've seen lots of gcc versions return internal compiler
errors going all the way back to gcc 2.7.2. By your logic, by now, I (or
anyone else) should never be using gcc or any distribution based on it,
"because it's broken".

-- Rex

by **Stephan Binne** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 03:39:00

>> A compiler should *never* run into a "internal compiler" error, that
>> has nothing to do with if the input is standard compliant or not.
> For the record, I've seen lots of gcc versions return internal compiler
> errors going all the way back to gcc 2.7.2. By your logic, by now, I

Right, there are lots of broken versions of gcc released including 3.0.x. I
read that 3.0.4 still has problems to compile standard compliant code in KDE.
And there are also unreleased broken versions like [some?] RedHat's 2.96.x.

Quote:> (or anyone else) should never be using gcc or any distribution based
> on it, "because it's broken".

Why, because there are broken versions? Just use the good ones like 2.95.x

Bye,
Steve

by **Rex Diete** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 06:46:24

Quote:> Right, there are lots of broken versions of gcc released including 3.0.x.
I
> read that 3.0.4 still has problems to compile standard compliant code in
KDE.
> And there are also unreleased broken versions like [some?] RedHat's

2.96.x.

Fine. I would challenge you to find code that crashes the currently
released version of redhat's gcc 2.96(-85). Until you do, please don't
continue to complain that redhat's compiler is broken.

-- Rex

by **Stephan Binne** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:24:57

>> there are lots of broken versions of gcc released including 3.0.x. I read
>> that 3.0.4 still has problems to compile standard compliant code in KDE.
>> And there are also unreleased broken versions like [some?] RedHat's 2.96.x.
> Fine. I would challenge you to find code that crashes the currently
> released version of redhat's gcc 2.96(-85). Until you do, please don't
> continue to complain that redhat's compiler is broken.

I would reject the challenge. Or I would simply look into bugzilla.redhat.com
and e.g. bugs #40069, #43705 and #50244 would sound really "promising". :-)

Why this specific version? Is it one of the good ones? Is it the first/only
2.96.x version included in distribution? Or did they deliver broken before?

I don't really want to nitpick every compiler bug, but reading the original
posting it seems there are 2.96 versions in wide use which fails to compile
valid code which 2.95 compiled fine. And only RedHat afaik "released" 2.96.

Bye,
Steve

by **Rex Diete** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:06:37

Quote:> And only RedHat afaik "released" 2.96.

And Mandrake.

-- Rex

by **Rex Diete** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:10:00

Quote:> I would reject the challenge. Or I would simply look into
bugzilla.redhat.com
> and e.g. bugs #40069,

closed. (ie, fixed).

Quote:> #43705

unverified (on sparc).

Quote:> #50244

closed.

-- Rex

by **Stephan Binne** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:35:14

>> And only RedHat afaik "released" 2.96.
> And Mandrake.

Sometimes it's not good to adopt everything RedHat produces.

Bye,
Steve

by **Stephan Binne** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:36:14

>> and e.g. bugs #40069,
> closed. (ie, fixed).

Sure, in later versions. You asked for 2.96(-85).

Bye,
Steve

by **Stephan Binne** » Mon, 01 Apr 2002 22:28:39

> Fine. I would challenge you to find code that crashes the currently
> released version of redhat's gcc 2.96(-85). Until you do, please don't

Just read http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2002-March/msg00002.html

Bye,
Steve (who now considers 2.96-98 still broken)

Very Computer

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.

kdenetwork 2.2.2 failing to compile.