X-pop3-spooler:	POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:26:55 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Dustin Marquess <jailbird AT alcatraz DOT fdf DOT net>
To:	Joerg Dalkolmo <kolmo AT geophys DOT uni-stuttgart DOT de>
cc:	beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Subject:	Re: syntax error while compiling pgcc-1.1
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.3.91.980917144305.21465A-100000@iris>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.02A.9809171125420.27890-100000@alcatraz.alcatraz.fdf.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Sender:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status:	RO
Lines:	62

	I downloaded the egcs-core-1.1b.tar.bz2 file from egcs.cygnus.com and
the patch file from ftp.goof.com.  I then applied the patch letting it skip
files that didn't exist (the C++/ObjC files) and it patched/compiled fine.


On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Joerg Dalkolmo wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 1998 at 04:40:17AM +0200, Joerg Dalkolmo wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > > 
> > > I have downloaded egcs-1.1b.tar.bz2 and egcs-1.1b-pgcc-1.1.diff.gz.
> > > Then I have done the following steps on two machines:
> > > (Linux-PCs, running kernel 2.0.0 and 2.0.30. Compiler gcc-2.7.2)
> > > 
> > > The compilation stopped on each machine at the same position.
> > 
> > That looks very fine.
> > 
> > > Perhaps while downloading and/or uncompressing one of the tar/diff-files 
> > 
> > In that case you really hsould have gotten reject files, patch usually
> > doesn't apply broken diffs. I've no idea what happenned, probably some
> > discrepancy between my source and the diff, but I found nothing broken in it
> > :(
> > 
> > BTW, some versions of patch are broken (IMHO all versions between and
> > including patch-2.2 and patch-2.5 ;), maybe, as a last resort, try using
> > another patch program (2.5.3 is recommended for linux, but its only an alpha
> > version).
> 
> Funny, funny, I can't get this stuff working 8-). To make sure having a clean
> start I downloaded egcs-1.1b.tar and egcs-1.1b-pgcc-1.1.diff again from
> ftp.fu-berlin.de. Because Marc mentioned a "bad" patch-program (on my
> distribution, S.u.S.E-Linux 4.2, there is patch-2.1) I tried patch-2.5 AND
> patch-2.5.3, but I ended up with the same error message at the same position.
> I'm going mad, hehehe! 
> 
> Here is the 'configuration' of the machine I am working at the moment:
> Linux-PC-100MHz (S.u.S.E-Linux 4.2)
> Compiler gcc-2.7.2
> libc.so.4.7.6
> libc.so.5.2.18
> patch-2.1 (now patch-2.5.3)
> gzip-1.2.4
> bunzip-0.1pl2
> ...what else could be informative?
> 
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> 
> Joerg
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>  Joerg Dalkolmo ( mailto:kolmo AT geophys DOT uni-stuttgart DOT de )
>  Institute of Geophysics, University of Stuttgart, Germany
>  ( http://www.geophys.uni-stuttgart.de )
> 

- Raw text -