Re: OSX Porting Problems

On 2007-03-14 at 18:21:14 [+0100], Morgan Howe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Ingo Weinhold <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2007-03-14 at 16:25:28 [+0100], Morgan Howe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 3/13/07, Ingo Weinhold <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 2007-03-13 at 16:35:05 [+0100], Morgan Howe <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A general hint beforehand: You seem to use gcc 4.1.2 as
> > cross-compiler.
> > > > While
> > > > that should work in principle, due to binary compatibility reasons
> > with
> > > > BeOS
> > > > our standard compiler is gcc 2.95.3 (in the legacy subdirectory) ATM.
> > The
> > > > gcc
> > > > 4 build is not very well tested and the resulting Haiku seems to have
> > some
> > > > problems (that is more than the version built with gcc 2.95.3 :-)).
> > > >
> > >
> > > You were correct, I was attempting to use gcc4 instead of 2.95.3.
> > > Unfortunately, with 2.95.3 being as old as it is, it does not support
> > intel
> > > based mac as a host platform.  I was able to find some patches that add
> > > support for ppc macs, but I can not seem to find anything to make it
> > work
> > > for the x86 version.
> >
> > Nevermind, then. Using 4.1.2 is fine. Just be aware that the gcc 4 build
> > is
> > not as well supported, might have a few more issues, and will break from
> > time
> > to time, when people check something in that works with gcc 2.95.3, but is
> > not well digested by the stricter gcc 4 (usually harmless things like
> > missing
> > <new> includes, missing std namespace denotation, etc.). Having someone
> > actively using gcc 4 is actually great for us, because it hopefully
> > improves
> > the situation in the long run.
> 
> Well, actually.. I decided to take a step backward and attempt to get the
> older tools to build which is how I came to the aforementioned conclusions.
> I'm glad to get your blessings on using gcc4, since that seems to get me
> further along in the process and since I'm fairly new to working with the
> gnu toolchain beyond simply as a user, I don't think I'm quite ready to try
> and patch the variety of config* files.  :)

Yeah, that's actually little fun. :-)

> Any progress with the size_t issue yet?
> 
> 
>  I have just rebuilt gcc4, and am going to start going forward again.  This
> will be my next focus.  In regards to your earlier comment about using a
> "very old system", I noticed that and found it strange myself.  :)  I've
> found a few things mentioning defining NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C, but that does
> not seem to help.  I'll continue to look into that as well.

The "-isystem" -> "-I" change looks OK to me. It even seems to be more 
correct (or at least desired) to use "-I". So, I'll apply it as soon as I've 
checked that it doesn't break the gcc 4 build under Linux. Which I suppose it 
won't.

CU, Ingo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV