| Author |
For the real Linux gurus *cough* Mr Linux Guy
|
|
| Boulware5 2002-12-09, 7:43 pm |
| I'm a little stuck. I patched my kernel source to the new 2.4.20 kernel. So I am recompiling the kernel and after "make mrproper", when I do "make xconfig" (or even when I do "make menuconfig") I get a host of weird errors. Here is a snippet from the bottom portion of the errors:
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-slackware-linux/3.2.1/include/stdio.h:582: parse error before "__BEGIN_NAMESPACE_STD"
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-slackware-linux/3.2.1/include/stdio.h:584: syntax error before "extern"
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-slackware-linux/3.2.1/include/stdio.h:593: syntax error before "extern"
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-slackware-linux/3.2.1/include/stdio.h:601: syntax error before "extern"
In file included from /usr/include/ncurses/ncurses.h:76,
from dialog.h:29,
from checklist.c:24:
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-slackware-linux/3.2.1/include/stdio.h:608:30: bits/sys_errlist.h: No such file or directory
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-slackware-linux/3.2.1/include/stdio.h:613: syntax error before "extern"
make[1]: *** [checklist.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.20/scripts/lxdialog'
make: *** [menuconfig] Error 2
Ok, I've been thinking about this. I use Slack and I make an effort to keep it updated. I currently have the new gcc version 3.2.1 and the latest binutils version 2.13.90. There are compile errors in stdio.h. I remember from my c++ days that it's a VERY common header file (standard input/output). Why the heck am I getting these errors involving that?
My libraries (gcc, libc, etc...) are up to date so this came as a surprise to me. Any thoughts? If you need it I can post the entire long compiling process which includes the syntax errors. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-10, 6:30 am |
| If you are getting syntax errors, you may want to try using a different make of gcc and see if that is the problem. | |
| Boulware5 2002-12-10, 11:08 am |
| I will try that and let you know. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-12, 10:00 am |
| Did it yield any different results? | |
| Boulware5 2002-12-12, 10:19 am |
| Haven't got around to trying it yet... | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-12, 10:20 am |
| No prob, was just checking.  | |
|
| I was downloading some binaries yesterday from IBM for a small app. & in the readme I found a statement pertaining to the gcc version 3.2.1 & associated libs . It said to use the older one because of known issues similar as to what you are encountering.
If this is any help | |
| Boulware5 2002-12-12, 3:13 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by tohrt
I was downloading some binaries yesterday from IBM for a small app. & in the readme I found a statement pertaining to the gcc version 3.2.1 & associated libs . It said to use the older one because of known issues similar as to what you are encountering.
If this is any help
Ah, Thanks. Yeah I figured it was some compatibility problem. Wouldn't this be more wider known, though? (Like talked about on Linux message boards and Linux websites.) This is the first I have heard about it though.
You think the next gcc version (and associated libs), 3.2.2 will correct this? | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
Ah, Thanks. Yeah I figured it was some compatibility problem. Wouldn't this be more wider known, though? (Like talked about on Linux message boards and Linux websites.) This is the first I have heard about it though.
You think the next gcc version (and associated libs), 3.2.2 will correct this?
I don't know. One would think it should. I was surprised to find this eratta in the readme file from IBM. I have since seen it pertaining to 2 other programs I have went to compile also, pertaining to the new gcc . |
|
|
|