|
| From: | Mehul Sanghvi |
| Subject: | Re: [Liberty-eiffel] Bug #44601 |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:41:01 -0400 |
The problem seems to be here:progress 30 1 $MAXTOOLCOUNT "T1: compile_to_c"run ./compile_to_c -verbose -boost -no_gc compile_to_c -o compile_to_c.new || exit 1compile_to_c.new is not created it seems and the return code is 0 so it does not exit.This is using the native OS X compiler in /usr/bin/gcc.I am going to see if I can get a different set of results using gcc-5 from macports.On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Mehul Sanghvi <address@hidden> wrote:I had time to work on this today and was at the point where I am at the following stage:% ./install.sh
Checking BDW GC
BDW too old or missing
Checking required programs.
All programs present, proceeding.
Preparing /usr/local/src/liberty-eiffel/target
Preparing Liberty environment
Bootstrapping SmartEiffel tools
gcc failed with status 1
Please look at /usr/local/src/liberty-eiffel/target/log/install-20160310-003957.log
cp: compile_to_c.new: No such file or directory
gcc failed with status 1
Please look at /usr/local/src/liberty-eiffel/target/log/install-20160310-003957.log
cp: compile_to_c.new: No such file or directory
T3: check
failed with status The compiler is not stable.
Please look at /usr/local/src/liberty-eiffel/target/log/install-20160310-003957.log
For now I am more interested in the "cp" failures rather than the "gcc" failures. I can work on those later, once I know that the install.sh script is working correctly.
What I want to do is run the script in debugging mode but that just messes up the output on the screen. Is there a way to do that and not get the script output messed up ?
Or should that be an enhancement request for the install script to support a debugging mode?
cheers,
mehul
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Paolo Redaelli <address@hidden> wrote:it seems that it is actually possible to buy a license of MacOSX 10.6 for ~20$ and install it into a VM!Also http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/309654-run-vanilla-os-x-el-capitan-yosemite-or-mavericks-in-virtualbox-5010-on-a-windows-host/ states that more recent releases are installable but it's more tricky.I'm mostly tempted spend a little money and time to deal with the dark side to let all those misguided padawans to discover the joys of Liberty, Liberty Eiffel!There's only one issue that shall be made clear: how long will Snow Leopard aka 10.6 be able to compile programs for more recent releases?I shall ask some friend of mine meanwhile2016-02-19 16:23 GMT+01:00 Mehul Sanghvi <address@hidden>:Sounds good. I'll see what I can do to get install.sh updated for that time frame.On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Paolo Redaelli <address@hidden> wrote:We hadn't any formal schedule.
With the new year we planned to release in February.
Now I think that middle March is more realistic-- Inviato dal mio cellulare Android con K-9 Mail.Il 19 febbraio 2016 05:07:29 CET, Mehul Sanghvi <address@hidden> ha scritto:When is the "bell" release due ?On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Raphael Mack <address@hidden> wrote:Hi Mehul, hi others,
I think it is great to have this fixed, I directly assigned it to the
upcoming bell release.
The main "problem" is, that most of us are working on linux and we don't
have much experience with compatibility issues. Anyhow, I'd suggest to
fix the problems when they occur for the platforms that are really used
without much formalism.
The patch was not applied so far, because I somehow would like to keep
at least the "-p" option. So what do you think for the other platforms?
Whould "-dpR" instead of "-a" work?
So yes, please check what happens on your platform and how we can fix it
and we will include it!
Regards and thanks in advance,
Rapha
Am Donnerstag, den 18.02.2016, 11:36 -0500 schrieb Mehul Sanghvi:
>
> I only have an iMac and an old PowerMac G4 running Debian.
>
>
> I can take a look at running a FreeBSD VM on my iMac and I can target
> that. I think for the most part *BSD systems
> will work if I target OS X, but why take that route when a VM may be
> available :)
>
>
> I would like to target OS X first, only if it helps me get Eiffel up
> and running on my system to play around with. This way I can work on
> making it a package for Macports as well.
>
>
>
>
> Thoughts and/or suggestions ?
>
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
>
> mehul
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Paolo Redaelli
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't own Apple hardware to test.
>
> Yet I know that Mac OS X is quite similar to a BSD system
> under the hood, so I guess that if
> we compile Liberty for some BSD it could also compile on
> MacOsX
>
> According to https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths and
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3446231/how-close-are-mac-os-x-and-bsd-related it seems that FreeBSD is the BSD variant most similar to MacOSX
>
>
> Does anyone have any clue about it?
>
>
>
> In that case we could target FreeBSD .
>
>
> 2016-02-18 15:08 GMT+01:00 <address@hidden>:
> I am the one who reported the bug #44601.
>
> I have no objection. It would be wonderful if
> install.sh run on any Unix-like system.
>
> KOIZUMI Satoru
>
>
> On 平成 28/02/17, at 10:27, Mehul Sanghvi wrote:
>
> I updated 44601. Although it doesn't directly
> relate, it is along the same lines, basically
> there are problems with getting install.sh to
> work on MacOS X because
> of assumptions about the script running with a
> GNU set of tools, rather than a general Unix
> set of tools.
>
> I see that 44601 hasn't had an update in a
> while. Since I'm going to need to get
> past this issue, and will have to work on
> install.sh to do so, does anyone have
> objections to assigning this bug to me ?
> Might as well put my release/build
> engineering acumen to good use :)
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
> mehul
>
>
>
>
--Mehul N. Sanghvi
email: address@hidden--Mehul N. Sanghvi
email: address@hidden--Mehul N. Sanghvi
email: address@hidden--Mehul N. Sanghvi
email: address@hidden
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |