[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug #63767] build failure on macOS 12.6.3

From: G. Branden Robinson
Subject: [bug #63767] build failure on macOS 12.6.3
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 02:49:53 -0500 (EST)

Update of bug #63767 (project groff):

                Category:                    None => General                
              Item Group:                    None => Build/Installation     
                  Status:                    None => Need Info              
             Assigned to:                    None => gbranden               
                 Summary: Build failure on macOS 12.6.3 => build failure on
macOS 12.6.3


Follow-up Comment #1:

[comment #0 original submission:]
> I downloaded groff-1.23.0.rc2.tar.gz from GNU's alpha FTP site

Thank you for evaluating the RC!

> but encountered an unfamiliar build failure pertaining to vasnprintf.c:
> lib/vasnprintf.c:411:16: error: expected parameter declarator
> static_assert (sizeof (mp_limb_t) * CHAR_BIT == GMP_LIMB_BITS);
>                ^
> lib/vasnprintf.c:411:16: error: expected ')'
> lib/vasnprintf.c:411:15: note: to match this '('
> static_assert (sizeof (mp_limb_t) * CHAR_BIT == GMP_LIMB_BITS);
>               ^
> lib/vasnprintf.c:411:1: warning: type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'
> static_assert (sizeof (mp_limb_t) * CHAR_BIT == GMP_LIMB_BITS);
> ^
> lib/vasnprintf.c:415:16: error: expected parameter declarator
> static_assert (sizeof (mp_twolimb_t) * CHAR_BIT == GMP_TWOLIMB_BITS);
>                ^
> lib/vasnprintf.c:415:16: error: expected ')'
> lib/vasnprintf.c:415:15: note: to match this '('
> static_assert (sizeof (mp_twolimb_t) * CHAR_BIT == GMP_TWOLIMB_BITS);

Argh.  This is really not good because this code comes from gnulib; i.e., it's
not really our code.

I don't really have any idea what's going on here.  Compiler defaulting to
pre-ISO C11 flags?  (`static_assert` came in with C11; we don't use it in
_groff_, which is pretty much ISO C++98 and ISO C99, and not very aggressively
those at that.)

If you know of an easy way to ask the compiler and toolchain for ISO C11 or
later support, please try that.

> FWIW, I couldn't build from HEAD either (i.e., using the sources at revision
5d79ab9 in a clean checkout).

This is not a surprise.  I am trying to minimize changes to code (cf. tests,
documentation) before asking Bertrand to tag the final release.

> Attached are the config.{log,status} files and a copy of my terminal

Thanks--I'll have a look.


Reply to this item at:


Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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