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: George Sherwood <pilot AT beernabeer.com>
- 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 10:52:00 -0600
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:49:26 +0100
Treeve Jelbert <treeve AT scarlet.be> wrote:
> 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.
I only now for the first time enabled CCACHE and imagemagick failed as
described. Seems like that would rule out this option.
George
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-
[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.