Re: 2.95.2 missing files?

[Derek Greer <dgreer at fedex dot com>]

"Martin v. Loewis" wrote:

> > I recently downloaded gcc 2.95.2 and installed it on a Sparc 2.5.1
> > system.  After installing and attempting to compile a piece of code
> > which relied on sockets.h it coughed because it didn't like the
> > header it was finding.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "coughed", by "did not like", and by "it
> was finding"? I.e. what was the exact input, the exact error message,
> and why do you think the error message was wrong?

As I stated in another email you have probably already received, I was
unaware this
was an address for filing formal bug reports or I would have used more
specific
descriptions to recount my problem.  Obviously my intended meaning was
that the sockets.h header file was incompatible with gcc.  I'm not sure it
really matters in what way it was incompatible, just that it was.  Also, I
never said I thought the error message was
incorrect.  When I received the errors I assumed the header file was
simply incompatible
in some way.


>
>
> > Upon investigation I discovered that the gcc package didn't install
> > a version of sockets.h and the one in /usr/include was incompatible
> > with the gcc compiler.
>
> gcc works as designed by not installing an own copy of sockets.h. If
> it finds one in /usr/include that "it does not like" (whatever exactly
> that means), it is not working as designed.
>

This was my misunderstanding in assuming the gcc package completely
provided
everything, system header files and all.  Since practically all UNIX
systems have a
C compiler on them, few developers have probably installed the compiler
they use.
When installing on other platforms such as Windows, all the header files
install along with the compiler.  I guess I expected installing a new
compiler on a UNIX system would
work the same way rather than relying on previously installed files.


>
> > Are sockets not supported with gcc 2.95.2?
>
> gcc is a C compiler, not a sockets library. On its own, it does not
> support a single library function (neither printf, nor socket).
>

I got that now.

>
> > Can gcc 2.95.2 not stand alone as a complete replacement of the
> > compiler that comes with Sun boxes?
>
> It can replace the compiler, not the system header files or libraries.
>
> Regards,
> Martin