This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- To: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Subject: Re: unwind-dw2-fde.[ch]
- From: Matthew Hudson <mhudson at home dot com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 21:52:57 -0500
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, patrick dot mackinlay at kjv dot com dot au
- Organization: @Home Network
- References: <200109070217.TAA23797@kankakee.wrs.com>
If its broken. Fix it. This guy has a valid issue. Why the hell can't
you just change the names? Trying to build via nfs on a system that old
would be PAINFUL. I've only been on this list for the last few days
and my god. You people don't want to do anything but give alternatives
as opposed to actually just fixing the problem. If you want him to
provide a patch then ASK HIM TO. I've been reading many of the gcc
mailing lists over the last few days and I see no protocol for
actually getting things done except when you simply bitch about it.
Not all of us are familiar with the internals of gcc and those of us
who want to be are turned off/away by the complete lack of assistance
on simple problems that would take someone with CVS write access about
30 seconds to fix. I know we all have other things to do and those
things can take much time but at least tell us how we can get the
problems we are having resolved. I do know that everything that worked
up to 2.8.1 is now completely broken in dgux on m88k. Various hacks
here and there in what looks like an attempt to make the code compile
(as opposed to actually work). If someone can point me to a page that
tells me what the protocol is for actually getting a problem fixed and
not ignored I'd really like that. Sorry about the rant but sheesh
people tell us what to do so if all else fails we can try to fix the
problem and submit the changes to the correct people/place.
mike stump wrote:
> > From: "Mackinlay, Patrick" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: email@example.com
> > Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:06:42 +0800
> > In my work trying to build gcc with an old Intergraph InterPro as a host,
> > I've run into a problem with file name length with two of the files added to
> > the gcc-3.0 (that weren't a problem with 2.95.3). The two files
> > (unwind-dw2-fde.c and unwind-dw2-fde.h) unfortunately overflow the
> > 14-character max filename length of the host OS, leaving only one after a
> > full tar -xf, and causing a build dependency problem later on.
> > Although there are other >14 character filenames produced at various times
> > (the host descriptor, in fact, is clipper-intergraph-clix), these have not
> > yet caused a problem. Would it be too much to ask that the files in question
> > could have their filenames shortened? It seems like a small price to pay to
> > allow future build success on these older Unixen...
> Would building on an nfs volume fix this problem? If it does, that's
> what I'd recommend.
> If not, I'd recommend building via a cross compiler. Should be fairly
> trivial, see the documentation for instructions.