sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?
- From: Treeve Jelbert <treeve AT scarlet.be>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:49:26 +0100
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 16:52:53 Kevin Monceaux wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, George Sherwood wrote:
> > TileHeight is declared in shear.c, so I am not sure what is going on.
>
> After a lot of trial and error I think I've made a bit of progress. I
> discovered with with the exact same configure options I could build
> imagemagick successfully "by hand" but casting it failed. The only
> difference I could think of between the two was that I had ccache enabled
> in sorcery. I disabled ccache and was able to cast imagemagick
> successfully. I enabled/disabled it a couple of more times and each time
> the cast fails with ccache enabled, and succeeds with ccache disabled.
> Are there any ccache gurus around that know why ccache might cause such a
> compile failure?
>
I suspect a bad cached compile from gcc.
ccache calculates a hash based on the preprocessed input file, the compiler
version and the compiler flags. If the hash matches, ccache uses the
previously
compiled output or error file.
what happen if you reenable ccache and choose some different CFLAGS, just for
the bad file? This should force a fresh compile, as ccache will not find a
match.
Looking at the source file, their are no #ifdef which could cause problems.
It
is as if gcc misread part of the file.
> I've also been seeing similar cast failures with lvm. Unfortunately
> disabling ccache doesn't seem to help that problem.
>
>
>
> Kevin
> http://www.RawFedDogs.net
> http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org
> Bruceville, TX
>
> Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
> Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!!
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
--
Regards, Treeve
-
[SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Kevin Monceaux, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
flux, 11/04/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, Kevin Monceaux, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
George Sherwood, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Kevin Monceaux, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, George Sherwood, 11/05/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Treeve Jelbert, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, George Sherwood, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, Kevin Monceaux, 11/05/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Kevin Monceaux, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, George Sherwood, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
flux, 11/04/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.