Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: gdb 20000413 compile problem and strange SEGVproblem]]

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Tim Mooney wrote:
> 
> In regard to: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: gdb 20000413 compile problem and strange SEGV...:
> 
> >Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>
> >> By ``object'' did you mean a warning or an error?
> >>
> >> > I downloaded gdb+dejagnu-20000413.tar.bz2 and encountered one problem building
> >> > it with the Compaq compiler: the compiler objected to comparisons between
> >> > {current,debug}_target.to_rcmd and tcomplain (which was being case to (void
> >> > *)).  I'm not sure why the cast to (void *) is there at all, but my first
> >> > thought was to try casting tcomplain to be a pointer to a function,
> >> > and that worked.  This is the patch I used:
> >>
> >> Your change makes sense.  It was cast to (void*) since the functions
> >> to_rcmd() and tcomplain() were not type incompatible.  The compaq
> >> compiler is more picky about such things.
> >
> >FYI,
> >
> >I've just checked and GDB-5.0 build on an ``OSF1 V4.0 464 alpha'' using
> >both GCC and the native CC.  I'll assume that these were compiler
> >warnings rather than fatal compiler errors.  Consequently the cleanups
> >should get merged into the trunk but not the GDB-5.0 branch.
> 
> Andrew-
> 
> Thanks for looking into this.
> 
> They were errors, not warnings.  The build stopped at that point.  This was
> with the latest version of the vendor compiler on alpha-dec-osf4.0f (4.0f ==
> Rev 1229, you can tell what the letter version is by running `sizer -v').
> I don't know if I tried this on my 5.0 box at home, but I don't think so.
> I think rev 464 is osf4.0b, which has a compiler that may not be as recent
> as the current patched compiler on the later versions of the OS.

Is there a way of convincing the compiler that it shouldn't be so pig
headed?

> If you want to email me how I can get access to the 5.0 tree, I'll happily
> test the build on a few different versions of the OS, including my 5.x box
> at home.  If I just do a `cvs checkout' will I get the 5.0 tree, or do I have
> to do something special?

You would need to specify ``-r gdb_5_0-2000-04-10-branch''.

	Andrew