guile-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: strange stuff


From: Marius Vollmer
Subject: Re: strange stuff
Date: 25 Jun 2001 02:57:35 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.102

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello together,
> 
> * when configuring guile, I get the message
> 
>   [...]
>   loading cache /dev/null
>   ./configure: .: /dev/null: not a regular file
>   [...]

I do not get this.  It could be that not all your configure scripts
have been recreated using autoconf 2.50.
 
> [...] In any case, the warning that /dev/null is not a regular file
> might confuse people and it would be nice if that could be switched
> off.

It will not appear in a properly packaged distribution.

> * when building, I get the following messages:
> 
>   [...]
>   make[1]: Entering directory 
> `/home/dirk/software/src/guile/development/libltdl'
>   /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.     -g -O2 
> -c ltdl.c
>   ./libtool: test: =: unary operator expected
>   [...]

I'm not seeing this, either.  Did you run

    libtoolize --copy --automake --ltdl --force

in guile-core?  Maybe we should add the "--force" flag to autogen.sh,
(but then I must be careful not to hack in libltdl...)

>   numbers.c:4203: warning: `SIZE_MAX' redefined
>   /usr/include/stdint.h:270: warning: this is the location of the previous 
> definition
>   numbers.c:4205: warning: `PTRDIFF_MIN' redefined
>   /usr/include/stdint.h:258: warning: this is the location of the previous 
> definition
>   numbers.c:4206: warning: `PTRDIFF_MAX' redefined
>   /usr/include/stdint.h:259: warning: this is the location of the previous 
> definition
>   [...]

Fixed, thanks!

>   gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I./.. -I../libltdl -g -Wall -W -DSCM_DEBUG=1 
> -Wp,-MD,. deps/stime.pp -c stime.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o stime.o
>   stime.c:134: warning: missing initializer
>   stime.c:134: warning: (near initialization for `scm_your_base.millitm')
>   [...]

I don't know what the right fix would be.  Would not initializing it
explicitely be OK?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]