Re: [Plplot-devel] automatic dependencies

[Geoffrey F. <fu...@ga...>]

Alan W. Irwin writes:
 > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Geoffrey Furnish wrote:
 > >  > On my system the gcc version is as follows:
 > >  > gcc -dumpversion
 > >  > 2.95.4
 > >
 > > ?!?!  What the heck is 2.95.4?  Never heard of it.  And the release
 > > page at gcc.gnu.org makes no mention of it.  Must be another Linux
 > > dist vendor inventing gcc releases again like Red Hat did when they
 > > christened a daily gcc snapshot "2.96" and started the whole debacle.
 > 
 > I believe the .4 is just part of the Debian numbering scheme.
 > >From their changelog, they are just following gcc CVS for 2.9.5 for
 > various snapshots.

Well, there is no official gcc 2.95.4, just as there is no official
gcc 2.96.  Red Hat really opened a can of worms when they decided to
declare their own "gcc release" from a daily snapshot.  If more Linux
dists are following this trend, I think its going to lead to (more)
trouble. 

 > > Could you do me a favor and paste that line into your system, and try
 > > editing it to find out what makes the error message go away?  Is the
 > > problem the -M* options, or is it the multiple -c options, or is it
 > > just the use of the -o (which would totally floor me).
 > 
 > If the "-MF .d.pdfutils -MP" part of the option string is dropped all is
 > well. Another way of saying this is you can add -MD and (the redundant) -c
 > to the normal compile command from yesterday, and it compiles without
 > complaint, but -MF and -MP options cause problems.

Thanks.

 > I then echoed gcc_major right from the Makefile and it
 > was 2 as expected.  I then tried the same thing with gcc_v3 and
 > it was 1 which *was not expected* and which causes the problem.
 > 
 > I have no idea why gcc_v3 is being set to 1 rather than the expected zero.

Turned out to be a quoting issue.