gcc installation - Solaris

This is a discussion on gcc installation - Solaris ; Hi, im running solaris 10 and am trying to compile vlc media player, when i run configure it checks for gcc and says not found, when i look in the solaris product registry is says gcc is listed so it ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: gcc installation

  1. gcc installation

    Hi,


    im running solaris 10 and am trying to compile vlc media player, when i run
    configure it checks for gcc and says not found,

    when i look in the solaris product registry is says gcc is listed so it
    looks like its installed ok

    im guessing i need to add gcc to my path to get it to be recognised


    can anyone help with this


    jamie


  2. Re: gcc installation

    james maslin wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    >
    > im running solaris 10 and am trying to compile vlc media player, when i
    > run configure it checks for gcc and says not found,
    >
    > when i look in the solaris product registry is says gcc is listed so it
    > looks like its installed ok
    >
    > im guessing i need to add gcc to my path to get it to be recognised
    >

    It's at /usr/sfw/bin

    --
    Ian Collins.

  3. Re: gcc installation

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:25:19 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:

    > james maslin wrote:


    >> im guessing i need to add gcc to my path to get it to be recognised
    >>

    > It's at /usr/sfw/bin


    The compiler is useless without make, as and ld, all of which are in
    /usr/ccs/bin.

  4. Re: gcc installation

    On Aug 23, 10:09 am, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:25:19 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
    > > james maslin wrote:
    > >> im guessing i need to add gcc to my path to get it to be recognised

    >
    > > It's at /usr/sfw/bin

    >
    > The compiler is useless without make, as and ld, all of which are in
    > /usr/ccs/bin.


    gmake is in /usr/sfw/bin. gcc will work just fine without /usr/ccs/bin
    on the PATH.


  5. Re: gcc installation

    On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:23:01 -0700, toby wrote:

    > On Aug 23, 10:09 am, Dave Uhring wrote:


    >> The compiler is useless without make, as and ld, all of which are in
    >> /usr/ccs/bin.

    >
    > gmake is in /usr/sfw/bin. gcc will work just fine without /usr/ccs/bin
    > on the PATH.


    gmake != make; gld != ld; gas != as. Using GNU binutils has caused many
    head hairs to be forcibly extracted.

  6. Re: gcc installation

    On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Dave Uhring wrote:

    > gmake != make; gld != ld; gas != as. Using GNU binutils has caused many
    > head hairs to be forcibly extracted.


    Well said, sir! :-)

    --
    Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member

    CEO,
    My Online Home Inventory

    URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
    http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com

  7. Re: gcc installation

    Rich Teer wrote:
    > On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Dave Uhring wrote:
    >
    >> gmake != make; gld != ld; gas != as. Using GNU binutils has caused many
    >> head hairs to be forcibly extracted.

    >
    > Well said, sir! :-)
    >


    These days, expecting a "configure" script to work out of the box on
    anything other than Linux is wishful thinking.

    sh != sh
    awk != awk
    sed != sed

    and many other linuxisms make life tedious. It often takes longer to port
    the script than to build the program. Having sfw and other stuff installed
    is little help as the probes built into most configures are badly written
    and apparently totally untested on anything other than the developers PC.



  8. Re: gcc installation

    Nomen Publicus wrote:

    >
    > These days, expecting a "configure" script to work out of the box on
    > anything other than Linux is wishful thinking.
    >
    > sh != sh
    > awk != awk
    > sed != sed
    >
    > and many other linuxisms make life tedious. It often takes longer to port
    > the script than to build the program. Having sfw and other stuff installed
    > is little help as the probes built into most configures are badly written
    > and apparently totally untested on anything other than the developers PC.
    >
    >



    I hate to disagree, but having built a lot of stuff recently which used
    the Gnu autoconf stuff on Solaris 10 x86, I've been surprised how well
    it worked. Of course, when it fails it's *really* a pain to sort out,
    but it could be worse. They could be using imake.

    The part that puzzles me is 10 years ago I ported a 500,000+ package
    from VMS to Unix and had it all working w/ only two preprocessor
    conditionals, byte sex and FORTRAN record length. Everything else was
    completely portable across 6 flavors of Unix. As far as I can see, the
    coders are using every system and software specific feature they can
    find. Sort of the Linux equivalent of the Microsoft "embrace, extend,
    extinguish" mantra.

    I think the more serious challenge is the Gnu attitude towards standards
    which seems to be the standard is whatever they feel like doing today.
    After years of routinely building Gnu tools for the Sun wherever I
    worked, I no longer include more than a few things in my path. Mostly
    just make and tar for the sake of having *some* consistency.

    rhb

  9. Re: gcc installation

    On 2007-09-02 16:36:00 +0100, Reginald Beardsley said:

    > across 6 flavors of Unix. As far as I can see, the coders are using
    > every system and software specific feature they can find. Sort of the
    > Linux equivalent of the Microsoft "embrace, extend, extinguish" mantra.


    I don't think it is like that; it is more a casual ignorance or
    indifference towards other platforms and standards than anything else.

    Cheers,

    Chris


  10. Re: gcc installation

    On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 19:54:24 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:
    > On 2007-09-02 16:36:00 +0100, Reginald Beardsley said:
    >
    >> across 6 flavors of Unix. As far as I can see, the coders are using
    >> every system and software specific feature they can find. Sort of the
    >> Linux equivalent of the Microsoft "embrace, extend, extinguish" mantra.

    >
    > I don't think it is like that; it is more a casual ignorance or

    s/casual/endemic/

    :-)

    Cheers, Liam

    > indifference towards other platforms and standards than anything else.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Chris
    >


  11. Re: gcc installation

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:57:27 +0100, "james maslin" wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >
    >im running solaris 10 and am trying to compile vlc media player, when i run
    >configure it checks for gcc and says not found,
    >
    >when i look in the solaris product registry is says gcc is listed so it
    >looks like its installed ok
    >
    >im guessing i need to add gcc to my path to get it to be recognised
    >
    >
    >can anyone help with this


    You need a working shift key.


    >
    >
    >jamie


    Barry
    =====
    Home page
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
    I do not represent atheists or atheism

  12. Re: gcc installation

    On Sep 1, 1:48 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:23:01 -0700, toby wrote:
    > > On Aug 23, 10:09 am, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > >> The compiler is useless without make, as and ld, all of which are in
    > >> /usr/ccs/bin.

    >
    > > gmake is in /usr/sfw/bin. gcc will work just fine without /usr/ccs/bin
    > > on the PATH.

    >
    > gmake != make; gld != ld; gas != as. Using GNU binutils has caused many
    > head hairs to be forcibly extracted.


    In the OP's case, both complaints are irrelevant; gcc's assembly and
    linking is internal; and GNU make is a fine tool.


  13. Re: gcc installation

    On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:05:54 -0700, toby wrote:

    > On Sep 1, 1:48 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:


    >> gmake != make; gld != ld; gas != as. Using GNU binutils has caused
    >> many head hairs to be forcibly extracted.

    >
    > In the OP's case, both complaints are irrelevant; gcc's assembly and
    > linking is internal;


    When have you succeeded in compiling a program with those utilities made
    unavailable?

    > and GNU make is a fine tool.


    Some people say that Internet Exploder is, too.

+ Reply to Thread