1. Compiler version?
- Posted by just_me Sep 21, 2010
- 1517 views
Which is the minimum compiler version needed to compile v.4 on Linux? I can't compile v.4 with gcc v. 3.4 and make v. 3.8
2. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Sep 21, 2010
- 1478 views
Which is the minimum compiler version needed to compile v.4 on Linux? I can't compile v.4 with gcc v. 3.4 and make v. 3.8
I'm using gcc 4.1.2 and make 3.80, though I'm not sure why gcc 3.4.4 would fail. Can you post the compiler errors that you get?
3. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by just_me Sep 21, 2010
- 1460 views
~/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source# ./configure --without-euphoria --full --debug ~/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source]# make eui -i ../include revget.ex -root /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0 make: eui: Command not found make: [svn_rev] Error 127 (ignored) mkdir -p /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/intobj/back /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/transobj/back /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/libobj/back /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/backobj/back /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/intobj/ /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/transobj/ /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/libobj/ /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/backobj/ make /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/eui OBJDIR=intobj EBSD= CONFIG=Makefile.eu EDEBUG=1 EPROFILE= make[1]: Entering directory `/home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source' gcc -m32 -pthread -c -Wall -Wextra -DEUNIX -DELINUX -fsigned-char -ffast-math -g3 -O0 -Wall -DESIMPLE_MALLOC -DARCH=ix86 -DELINUX -I /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/intobj/back be_decompress.c -o/home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/intobj/back/be_decompress.o make[1]: *** No rule to make target `/home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/intobj/main-.c', needed by `/home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source/build/intobj/back/coverage.h'. Stop. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source' make: *** [interpreter] Error 2
If I tell make to ignore errors (-i) it goes on but failed later anyways.
4. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 21, 2010
- 1434 views
~/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source# ./configure --without-euphoria --full --debug ~/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0/source]# make eui -i ../include revget.ex -root /home/hostured/rpm/SOURCES/euphoria-4.0 make: eui: Command not found
If I tell make to ignore errors (-i) it goes on but failed later anyways.
The key isn't your version of gcc, but that it's trying to use euphoria to update the revision. Obviously a problem with the build process that needs fixing. The easiest way to get building is probably to grab a euphoria binary interpreter from the eubins archive, and configure with that:
$ ./configure --eubin /path/to/eui/dir $ make
Matt
5. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by just_me Sep 21, 2010
- 1439 views
The easiest way to get building is probably to grab a euphoria binary interpreter from the eubins archive, and configure with that:
$ ./configure --eubin /path/to/eui/dir $ make
Matt
I didn't want to use eui because I'm trying to write a rpm package for Euphoria and wanted to see if it compiled from scratch without problems.
It seems I am the first person to try to compile it (!) since v.4. None of the releases (1-4) are able to be compiled on Linux without Euphoria pre-installed.
BTW, did someone delete my second post about the console output? It was posted after seeing my first post was (almost) unreadable since I hadn't written it between braces. Once braces were put on a new post, the text of the first (the one displaying in this thread) was modified to be displayed correctly. Odd behavior.
6. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 21, 2010
- 1384 views
BTW, did someone delete my second post about the console output? It was posted after seeing my first post was (almost) unreadable since I hadn't written it between braces. Once braces were put on a new post, the text of the first (the one displaying in this thread) was modified to be displayed correctly. Odd behavior.
I cleaned up your first post and then noticed you created a second (and now redundant) post, which I subsequently deleted.
irv also recently posted a message 5 times and I deleted four of those.
A moderator's job is never done. :D
7. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Sep 21, 2010
- 1423 views
The easiest way to get building is probably to grab a euphoria binary interpreter from the eubins archive, and configure with that:
$ ./configure --eubin /path/to/eui/dir $ make
Matt
I didn't want to use eui because I'm trying to write a rpm package for Euphoria and wanted to see if it compiled from scratch without problems.
Well, Euphoria is self-bootstrapping, so to do a clean compile from scratch, you need to rebuild from the Euphoria source.
It seems I am the first person to try to compile it (!) since v.4. None of the releases (1-4) are able to be compiled on Linux without Euphoria pre-installed.
I guess you mean the beta releases. I'm not sure if the plan is to start including pre-translated sources in the RC releases or for final releases only.
The alpha and beta releases don't include pre-translated sources and need to be bootstrapped. I'll leave it to the experts on the best way to generate a source rpm from this.
8. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Sep 21, 2010
- 1388 views
The easiest way to get building is probably to grab a euphoria binary interpreter from the eubins archive, and configure with that:
$ ./configure --eubin /path/to/eui/dir $ make
Matt
I didn't want to use eui because I'm trying to write a rpm package for Euphoria and wanted to see if it compiled from scratch without problems.
It seems I am the first person to try to compile it (!) since v.4. None of the releases (1-4) are able to be compiled on Linux without Euphoria pre-installed.
One cannot build Euphoria v4 from its source files unless you have a V4 interpreter already installed - it cannot be bootstrapped.
The reason is that part of V4 (the front end) needs to be run through the Euphora-to-C translator and then combined with the back end, which is already written in C, to form the V4 interpreter. And the front end source code uses constructs that are only available in V4.
So, the current way to do this is to install the binary interpreter from the eubins archive then build the rest of Euphoria v4 from that. Now it maybe that the pre-translated front end C source code could be part of a release package when the final V4 is shipped.
Note that V3 interpreter cannot be used because the V4 source code is written using V4 syntax, which V3 naturally enough does not understand.
9. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 22, 2010
- 1410 views
I didn't want to use eui because I'm trying to write a rpm package for Euphoria and wanted to see if it compiled from scratch without problems.
It seems I am the first person to try to compile it (!) since v.4. None of the releases (1-4) are able to be compiled on Linux without Euphoria pre-installed.
Where did you get the source? It won't work from a simple checkout. I did create a source package as part of the Debian packaging. It has to pre-translate and generate some additional files that require a working interpreter.
Once you have a working interpreter, take a look at using the "source" target in the makefile. It's meant to do all of that work that requires euphoria so that you can distribute source that only needs a compiler.
Matt
10. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by just_me Sep 23, 2010
- 1380 views
Where did you get the source? It won't work from a simple checkout. I did create a source package as part of the Debian packaging.
Matt
From source package
11. Re: Compiler version?
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Sep 23, 2010
- 1266 views
Where did you get the source? It won't work from a simple checkout. I did create a source package as part of the Debian packaging.
Matt
From source package
Like I said, the betas do not include the pre-translated source.
If this is a serious, insurmountable hurdle to creating an rpm package, we can probably go back and release beta-with-PTS editions that'll allow a person to combine their own binaries using just a C compiler (and shell script and make, etc).
