Re: Issues in installing 2.1

Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

>I have just downloaded SmartEiffel 2.1 from the primary web site,
>and am trying to install it (in a test area).
>The machine is a SunBlade 100 (UltraSPARC II) running Solaris 2.9.
>gcc is 2.95.2, although I have 3.3.2 available as "new gcc".
>
>The READ_ME says
>    Chose some place on the disk to unpack the se.tgz archive:
>    cd InstallationDirectory; gunzip se.tgz ; tar xvf se.tar
>
>In fact the file arrived as SmartEiffel-2-1.tgz, not se.tgz
>What I actually did was
>
>    cd /users/local/src
>    gzcat SmartEiffel-2-1.tgz | tar xvf -
>
>    Update your .cshrc (or equivalent) file with the following line:
>    setenv PATH your/installation/directory/SmartEiffel/bin:$PATH
>
>I misread this.  In retrospect, this is because I couldn't believe
>that I would have to change my ~/.cshrc in order to *install* a program.
>This is rather unusual.  I simply started a new csh and made the change
>in that.  This didn't work, and after floundering around for a while,
>simply scrapped the SmartEiffel directory and contents and started again.
>This time I did exactly what I was told and added a line
>    setenv PATH /users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin:$PATH
>to my ~/.cshrc
>
>    Then, in a freshly created shell window, just type:
>    cd your/installation/directory; cd SmartEiffel; make interactive
>
>"shell window"?  Why does it have to be a new *window*?  I just started
>up a fresh csh (in the right directory) and ran 'make interactive'.
>I answered all the questions by pressing the Enter key.  The build phase
>looked like
>    Summary of gathered options:
>      - C mode:     boost
>      - C compiler: gcc
>      - C options:  (compiler) -pipe -O2
>		    (linker)   
>
>    Here we go!
>
>    System call "gcc -pipe -O2 -c -x c compile_to_c1.c".
>...
>    System call "gcc -pipe -O2 -c -x c compile_to_c35.c".
>    System call "gcc -o compile_to_c compile_to_c[1-9].o compile_to_c[1-2][0-9].o compile_to_c3[0-5].o -x none -lm ".
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/compile_to_c -boost -no_gc -relax -o compile_to_c compile_to_c".
>    Received signal 11.
>    Eiffel program crash at run time.
>    No trace when using option "-boost"
>    Last system call failed (error reported).
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/compile_to_c -boost -no_gc -relax -o compile_to_c compile_to_c" failed.
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean compile_to_c".
>    sh: /users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean: not found
>    Last system call failed (error reported).
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean compile_to_c" failed.
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean compile".
>    sh: /users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean: not found
>    Last system call failed (error reported).
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean compile" failed.
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean clean".
>    sh: /users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean: not found
>    Last system call failed (error reported).
>    System call "/users/local/src/SmartEiffel/bin/clean clean" failed.
>
>    *** There have been errors during the install of SmartEiffel. Sorry :-(
>    
>This is exactly the same way that the build failed when I set $PATH in
>a new csh instead of in ~/.cshrc.  I notice that there are error messages
>from 'sh' saying it couldn't find this or that.  To be absolutely sure, I
>had also set $PATH in my ~/.profile.
>
>sh is 100% correct here.  At this stage in the build process,
>.../SmartEiffel/bin contains
>    compile_to_c     compile_to_c1.c  compile_to_c3.c  READ_ME
>    compile_to_c.h   compile_to_c2.c  compile_to_c4.c
>and there is indeed no 'clean' there at all.
>
>But perhaps that's because of the crash.  Perhaps it should be recompiled
>without boost mode, or with a completely different C compiler.
>
>Threading my way through install.c's menus, I found myself bothered by
>the fact that "go up a level" had a different magic code every time.
>It would be nice if "return to parent menu" was always [0].
>
>When I tried to select the C compiler, I found myself *very* confused.
>The C compiler on my system is called 'cc'.  When I'm asked what C
>compiler I want, I say 'cc'.  Then I'm told this is ambiguous!  But
>'cc' is the full and complete name of the C compiler!  There is a list
>of C compiler names, amongst which I see 'cc-openvms' and 'cc-unix',
>but that's no help to me, because I do not have any C compiler called
>cc-unix!
>
>Eventually, with some trepidation, I selected cc-unix.
>Then it said
>    This compiler has no known C++ capabilities.
>     In order to compile C++ programs, please also pick a C++ compiler.
>
>    Type <Enter> if you don't know what this is all about.
>
>    Please enter the new value of the default C++ compiler:
>      none, vpcc, cl, <gcc>, icc, wcl386, bcc32
>The traditional name for C++ compilers on Unix is CC.  Why is this not
>listed?  Not that it matters; if I wanted to compile C++, I wouldn't
>be installing Eiffel...
>
>Having set my C compiler to be 'cc' with option '-O', I then started
>[5] install again.  It told me that the most was 'boost'; I set that
>to all_check, but that has no discernable effect on the C compilations,
>    System call "cc -O -c compile_to_c3.c".
>and the like.
>
>However, this seemed to work.  So SmartEiffel-2-1 installed OK with
>C compiler = /opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc (Sun WorkShop 6 update 2 C 5.3 2001/05/15)
>but failed with GCC 2.95.2.
>
>
>
>  
>
Hi Richard,

I had similar problem when I installed SE2.x for the first time
(and often later if I forgot the preparations needed).
The new SE compiler is so memory consuming such that the
default setting of "limit datasize" is too small. Increasing
its value by a large factor solved the problem.

Hope this may help you.

WJ