Hello,
I am trying to compile Ruby 1.6.7 on a FreeBSD 4.6.2 Intel x86 box. I get the
following output:
===> Building for ruby-1.6.7.2002.07.15
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c process.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c ruby.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c signal.c
process.c: In function proc_getpgrp': process.c:801: too many arguments to function
getpgrp’
process.c: In function proc_setpgrp': process.c:830: too few arguments to function
setpgrp’
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c sprintf.c
*** Error code 1
1 error
*** Error code 2
I have searched the news groups, mailing lists, freebsd archives, and have not
found this error specific to this version of Ruby. This is a fairly vanilla
box, so I’m not sure what is going on. Is there a patch out somewhere that
I’m missing, or do I have a dependancy problem. Thanks in advance for the
help!
Dave Wilde
Did you get this working? Is this the 2002-03-01 release on the
website? I have compiled it on 4.6 STABLE with no problems.
···
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:52:14AM +0900, C. David Wilde wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to compile Ruby 1.6.7 on a FreeBSD 4.6.2 Intel x86 box. I get the
following output:
===> Building for ruby-1.6.7.2002.07.15
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c process.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c ruby.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c signal.c
process.c: In function proc_getpgrp': process.c:801: too many arguments to function
getpgrp’
process.c: In function proc_setpgrp': process.c:830: too few arguments to function
setpgrp’
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c sprintf.c
*** Error code 1
1 error
*** Error code 2
I have searched the news groups, mailing lists, freebsd archives, and have not
found this error specific to this version of Ruby. This is a fairly vanilla
box, so I’m not sure what is going on. Is there a patch out somewhere that
I’m missing, or do I have a dependancy problem. Thanks in advance for the
help!
Dave Wilde
–
Jim Freeze
If only I had something clever to say for my comment…
~
===> Building for ruby-1.6.7.2002.07.15
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c process.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c ruby.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c signal.c
process.c: In function proc_getpgrp': process.c:801: too many arguments to function
getpgrp’
process.c: In function proc_setpgrp': process.c:830: too few arguments to function
setpgrp’
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c sprintf.c
*** Error code 1
1 error
*** Error code 2
No -j for make when make a report like this… Yes, we can grep
for an actual source that have problem but none prefer to so.
It seems the bug of autoconf 2.52.
Let me explain more…
- first error is because config.h doesn’t define GETPGRP_VOID.
- second since it wrongly defines SETPGRP_VOID.
2 is well known problem as nobu described, see
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/autoconf-patches/2002-02/msg00059.html
However 1 is not so, at least on my environment configure properly
detect GETPGRP_VOID is needed. So there may be other thing.
But I also think that’s not ruby’s fault but a (newer?) bug of
autoconf.
···
In message 200208300742.g7U7gJ609111@sharui.nakada.kanuma.tochigi.jp nobu.nokada@softhome.net writes:
–
kjana@dm4lab.to August 30, 2002
Haste makes waste.
Try sup’ing your port of autoconf and rebuilding.
···
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:08:40PM +0900, YANAGAWA Kazuhisa wrote:
In message 200208300742.g7U7gJ609111@sharui.nakada.kanuma.tochigi.jp > nobu.nokada@softhome.net writes:
===> Building for ruby-1.6.7.2002.07.15
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c process.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c ruby.c
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c signal.c
process.c: In function proc_getpgrp': process.c:801: too many arguments to function
getpgrp’
process.c: In function proc_setpgrp': process.c:830: too few arguments to function
setpgrp’
cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -fPIC -I. -I. -c sprintf.c
*** Error code 1
1 error
*** Error code 2
–
Jim Freeze
If only I had something clever to say for my comment…
~