From: haibin z. <dr...@ya...> - 2007-07-10 03:26:20
|
--- Keith Marshall <kei...@us...>写道: > On Sunday 08 July 2007 16:04, haibin zhang wrote: > > As I know , you must build m4-1.4.9 with > gcc-2.95.3, > > It can't work when you build with gcc-3.4.X. > > No, this is not the case. Yes, there is a problem, > but your evaluation > is completely wrong. You keep making these wild > assessments, without > presenting any form of corroborating evidence; let > *me* make a wild > guess: your gcc-2.95.3 is the MSYS development > compiler; gcc-3.4.x is a > MinGW compiler, which is unsuitable for building > MSYS components. > > > I have reported the bug to m4 team , but they said > > they can't help me to resolve this problem. > > Nor should they, on the basis of your inadequate > problem assessment. > > > why m4-1.4.X can work building with gcc-2.95.3, > but > > can't work building with gcc-3.4.X, I guess that > the > > error is maybe in path resolve > > Nope. You are way off beam here; it has nothing to > do with path > resolution. The difference is in binary mode versus > text mode for > standard stream I/O. thank you very much > > > I guess that m4-1.4.X can resolve path /usr/bin as > > /usr/bin in gcc-2.95.3 , but it many resolve path > > /usr/bin as c:/msys/bin in gcc-3.4.X , so m4-1.4.X > > can't be used . > > Again, no. When you build with the MSYS development > compiler, I/O > defaults to binary, with LF only line endings; when > you build with a > MinGW compiler, the default is text, hence CRLF line > endings. Those > line ending differences completely explain the > failure of the MinGW > built m4-1.4.9 to work correctly with autoconf. If > I patch m4-1.4.9 > sources, to force all standard streams, and all > files opened by m4, to > binary mode, then recompile with MinGW's 3.4.5 > compiler, the resulting > m4.exe seems to work perfectly well with > autoconf-2.61. However, the > resulting m4 build does then fail four of its > testsuite checks; in each > case, the reported failure does appear to be related > to CRLF vs. LF > distinctions, for in each of the four cases, the > expected and actual > output appear identical to the naked eye; (if I can > devise an effective > strategy for capturing the respective streams, I'll > try to compare them > with `od', but that's an exercise for another day). Can we do opposite, compile gcc 3.4.X as MSYS development, so that can use gcc 3.4.X to compile m4-1.4.9 do you know how to compile gcc 3.4.X defaults to binary, with LF only line endings ? Regards Zhang HaiBin ___________________________________________________________ 抢注雅虎免费邮箱3.5G容量,20M附件! http://cn.mail.yahoo.com |