Professional Web Applications Themes

cscope 15.5 - UNIX Programming

Hello, I just downloaded cscope-15.5 from http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4664 and tried to build it on solaris 8 as nonadministrator (I'm not administrator). So I supply ./configure with --prefix=MyOwnDirectory. There are no errors or warnings in the configure output, but the subsequent make step has fatal errors with the following message: make all-recursive make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5' Making all in doc make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5/doc' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5/doc' Making all in src make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5/src' /bin/bash ../ylwrap `test -f 'fscanner.l' || echo './'`fscanner.l .c fscanner.c -- : make[2]: *** [fscanner.c] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving ...

  1. #1

    Default cscope 15.5

    Hello,

    I just downloaded cscope-15.5 from

    http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4664

    and tried
    to build it on solaris 8 as nonadministrator (I'm not
    administrator). So I supply ./configure with
    --prefix=MyOwnDirectory. There are no errors or warnings
    in the configure output, but the subsequent make step has
    fatal errors with the following message:

    make all-recursive
    make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5'
    Making all in doc
    make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5/doc'
    make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
    make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5/doc'
    Making all in src
    make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5/src'
    /bin/bash ../ylwrap `test -f 'fscanner.l' || echo './'`fscanner.l .c fscanner.c -- :
    make[2]: *** [fscanner.c] Error 1
    make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5/src'
    make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
    make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/fma/cscope-15.5'
    make: *** [all] Error 2

    I looked at the Makefile in src/ and it is much more
    complicated than the ones I write.

    The INSTALL file says that solaris's native lex "fails to
    catch our redefinition of YYLMAX early enough, which leads
    to possible buffer overflows". No suggested actions. Do I
    need to install flex?

    There is a platform-independent suggestion to use flex rather
    than lex. Neither seem to be on my system. I also took a look
    at the ylwrap script mentioned in the errors. Nothing obvious
    about what may be the cause. There is mention of yacc, but
    that isn't recognized on our system.

    The INSTALL file syas that on Linux, "configure may fail if lex
    is a synomyn for flex". For me, configure didn't fail, and neither lex nor flex is recognized. But I tried the described fix anyway:

    make distclean
    ./configure --with-flex
    make

    This doesn't prevent the fatal errors above.

    What is the next best thing to try or read up about?

    Thanks.

    Fred

    P.S. A web address is given to report build problems,
    but I'm not sure that it is a bug. The reporting site
    http://sourceforge.net/bugs/?func=addbug&group_id=4664
    suggests that it is for bugs.
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Hi,
     

    use gnu flex and put it first thing in your path. I just packaged cscope
    for blastwave.org you can get the packages from there withtin a day. But
    you can also eMail me in private and I put the binary (yes you only need
    one binary) for you on the webpage.

    Thomas
    Thomas Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Thomas Glanzmann wrote: 
    >
    > use gnu flex and put it first thing in your path. I just packaged cscope
    > for blastwave.org you can get the packages from there withtin a day. But
    > you can also eMail me in private and I put the binary (yes you only need
    > one binary) for you on the webpage.
    >
    > Thomas[/ref]


    Thanks for the pointer, Thomas. I just installed flex,
    which required installing bison (in place of yacc), as
    well as m4. Whew! Now time to see if gvim works with
    cscope.

    Fred

    P.S. I hope you don't mind my having replied to all
    the newsgroups originally posted to. The reason is
    because I'm not sure whether Google groups archive
    captures the Followup-To field, so it looks like the
    thread got severed in some groups (though if archive
    browsers look hard enough, they can see the alternate
    groups from the original post).
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    As the current maintainer of open-source cscope, let me add a few
    comments, even though the main issue seems to have been resolved by
    another post:

    In comp.unix.programmer Fred Ma <carleton.ca> wrote:
    [...] 

    This snippet indicates that you had neither flex nor lex on your
    machine. You would need at least one of them to build cscope, because
    my tarball doesn't include pre-lexed C source files.

    Maybe "configure" should bail out after having found neither of them,
    and refuse to let you get as far as the make step, but that's another
    story.
     

    Of course it is --- but that's because it does a whole lot more than
    any home-grown Makefile usually does. GNU tools autoconf and automake
    jump through quite a lot of hoops to get their work done while
    maintaining maximal portability. The generated Makefile is no more
    useful to look into than your typical X11/Imake-generated one ---
    maybe even less so.
     

    There are two ways out of this, really:

    1) Use flex and be done with platform-specifics once and for all.

    2) Manually put a -DYYLMAX=(whatever) in the CFLAGS.

    Or (strictly hypothetically) convince Sun to fix this bug in Solaris
    lex...
     

    Failure to build on any (non-pathetic) Unix platform does, of course,
    constitute a bug for a program like this. So feel free to report them
    there. (This one already has been posted there by somebody).

    --
    Hans-Bernhard Broeker (rwth-aachen.de)
    Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
    Hans-Bernhard Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Hans-Bernhard Broeker <rwth-aachen.de> writes:

    [snip]
     

    Speaking in more general terms, isn't autoconf/automake/... an overkill for
    a project like cscope? It seems it bring more problems than gains.

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
    Dragan Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    "Larry V." wrote: 


    Well, I'll be danged, they're there. And there I went installing
    flex, bison, and m4 from gnu (thanks for that suggestion). Well,
    I'm going to keep this email if only as a piece of information
    about what directory to find things in. Thank you!

    Fred
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    In comp.unix.solaris Fred Ma <carleton.ca> wrote: [/ref]

     

    You can also find that information in the FAQ...

    http://www.science.uva.nl/pub/solaris/solaris2.html#q6.2
    6.2) Which packages do I need to install to support a C compiler?

    --
    Darren Dunham com
    Unix System Administrator Taos - The SysAdmin Company
    Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
    < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
    Darren Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Joerg Schilling wrote: 
    > .... 
    >
    > I don't know what you like to do....
    >
    > If you have Sun's C-compilerl you have /opt/SUNWspro/bin/cscope
    >
    > You may also want to have a look at "calltree"
    >
    > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/calltree/[/ref]

    Sorry, for the late reply, Joerg. What I want to do is
    use gvim's interface to cscope. Thanks for pointing
    out your call tree program, anyway.

    Fred

    P.S. Is it netiquettely acceptable to bcc a poster
    if I am respond late (in web terms, 5 days is late)?
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    > Joerg Schilling wrote: [/ref]


    Oh, forgot to mention....it's there! Thanks again.
    I will keep note of the path name for future reference.

    Fred
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Darren Dunham wrote: [/ref]

    >
    > You can also find that information in the FAQ...
    >
    > http://www.science.uva.nl/pub/solaris/solaris2.html#q6.2
    > 6.2) Which packages do I need to install to support a C compiler?[/ref]


    Darren, it's a nice web page. Though I must admit,
    I would not have recognized the question 6.2 as
    also being relevant to cscope. Actually, as Joerg
    mentioned, cscope also exists! I feel dopy building
    all that software in my personal account space (I am
    not administrator) when there was no need. Oh well,
    I have the most recent one. In some packages, that
    matters e.g. the most recent exuberant ctags tags
    definitions of *local* variables. Sweeet. Unfortunately,
    running into problems with using it from gvim, which I
    post about elsewhere. Ah well. Thanks for pointing
    out your FAQ.

    Fred
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: 
    >
    > Of course it is --- but that's because it does a whole lot more than
    > any home-grown Makefile usually does. GNU tools autoconf and automake
    > jump through quite a lot of hoops to get their work done while
    > maintaining maximal portability. The generated Makefile is no more
    > useful to look into than your typical X11/Imake-generated one ---
    > maybe even less so.[/ref]

    Thanks for letting me know! I always thought that, though auto-
    generated, they were meant to be comprehensible if only one was
    experienced enough (shudder when I see those files). Technically
    may be true, but not necessarily the best way to go about doing
    things. For a while, I've been digesting that fact that there is a
    make-type file for Makefiles i.e. yet another level of abstraction
    and another language to maybe have to learn some time.
     
    >
    > There are two ways out of this, really:
    >
    > 1) Use flex and be done with platform-specifics once and for all.
    >
    > 2) Manually put a -DYYLMAX=(whatever) in the CFLAGS.
    >
    > Or (strictly hypothetically) convince Sun to fix this bug in Solaris
    > lex...[/ref]

    I installed gnu flex. Thanks for pointint out the alternative.

    Fred
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    In comp.unix.programmer Fred Ma <carleton.ca> wrote:

    [on GNU auto* tools]
     

    .... and they are. The crucial point of course is what "exprienced
    enough" means. If you don't understand them, that obviously means
    you're not yet experienced enough.
     

    The basic problem is with make itself. It's about the single least
    standardized program in the usual Unix toolset, with the largest
    collection of vendor-specific extensions. Those extensions exist
    because the portable common feature set of all make implementations
    lacks some pretty important capabilities, e.g. for handling sources
    distributed over a somewhat complex tree of subdirectories.
    Unfortunately, all vendors tend to implement their extensions
    incompatibly, so portable Makefile can't use them.

    Make also relies on lots of the other tools (sh, most prominently) to
    get the actual work done. This pulls in just about the entire
    collection of platform-specific strange behaviours and outright bugs
    of the Unix tool universe. It's all those "features" that set up the
    hoops for auto{conf,make} to jump through.

    All this makes Makefiles for non-trivial programs very hard to write
    fully portably --- it can be harder than writing maximally portable C
    code, at times. Various attempts have been made to cure this unhappy
    situation. Some replace make itself by something else (e.g. cmake,
    cook, Ant, not to mention all the IDEs out there, each with its own
    incompatible project description file format). Others generate
    Makefiles from templates and transformation rules (e.g. X11's
    imake/makemake, and GNU auto tools).

    The basic idea of autoconf and automake is to collect as much
    knowledge about such platform specifics as feasible, in a central
    place (the auto* tools themselves). That way the individual
    application programmer can concentrate on their own work without
    needing to know all those fine details. The way the auto* tools
    actively test for properties of the build platform, rather than just
    hardwiring assumptions about them into Makefiles, goes a long way
    towards preventing bit-rot; and it often allows to just build a
    program even on platforms that didn't exist yet at the time the source
    tarball was made.

    --
    Hans-Bernhard Broeker (rwth-aachen.de)
    Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
    Hans-Bernhard Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    In comp.unix.programmer Dragan Cvetkovic <net> wrote: 
     
     [/ref]
     

    I don't think so. Being able to use pre-defined code to locate a
    suitable curses implementation and determine its basic capabilities
    alone would be worth having it.

    Neither do I experience any particular problems being caused by these
    tools, so far. The problems that currently exist are mainly caused by
    cscope not using autoconf/automake to the maximal extent possible,
    rather than by the tools themselves.

    --
    Hans-Bernhard Broeker (rwth-aachen.de)
    Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
    Hans-Bernhard Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    FYI, just for the record:
    solaris binaries of "open" cscope 15.5 are available from blastwave.org

    Phil Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Hans-Bernhard Broeker <rwth-aachen.de> writes:
     

    > [/ref]

    >
    > I don't think so. Being able to use pre-defined code to locate a
    > suitable curses implementation and determine its basic capabilities
    > alone would be worth having it.
    >
    > Neither do I experience any particular problems being caused by these
    > tools, so far. The problems that currently exist are mainly caused by
    > cscope not using autoconf/automake to the maximal extent possible,
    > rather than by the tools themselves.[/ref]

    [ sorry for the late late answer, I was away for a week ]

    I was more concerned with the rather rapid changes in autoconf suite of
    programs (there is a new version of them every couple of months) and most
    of the time the software I care about (like cscope) wants the latest
    version of auto... software (I am not saying that cscope needs the latest
    version of auto programs, just that cscope is the piece of software I care
    about) so I have to update them as well which makes a program compilation
    and installation a larger project then I have time and willingness to do.

    Not exactly the right example, but e.g. PostgreSQL 7.4.1 asks for Bison
    1.875 which is/was the beta version at the time I installed PostgreSQL. Etc
    etc.

    Bye, Dragan


    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
    Dragan Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Dragan Cvetkovic <net> wrote:
     

    Release versions (at least of cscope) "want" _no_ version of autoconf
    software at all. You only need autoconf if you're using the CVS
    version of cscope. If you stick to tarballs, you won't even need
    autoconf installed in the first place, let alone need to have a
    particularly current version.

    This state of affairs is at least supposed to be pretty universal
    across the field of free software using GNU autoconf and automake. If
    you're so avant-garde as to use CVS versions of cscope regularly, I
    see no reason why you shouldn't be forced to use even the CVS version
    of autoconf with it.

    --
    Hans-Bernhard Broeker (rwth-aachen.de)
    Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
    Hans-Bernhard Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Hans-Bernhard Broeker <rwth-aachen.de> writes:
     

    It should be so but it isn't always so. I was installing today a new
    version of privoxy and first it required GNU make (so I had to type gmake
    instead of make), then it asking me to run autoheader and autoconf and
    these two produced a lot of warnings and some errors. And it was a stable
    version, not a CVS snapshot (which finally fixed some memory leaks)!

    But anyway, that's not your fault :-) I am using cscope all the time here
    and consider it a great program.

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
    Dragan Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: cscope 15.5

    Phil Brown wrote: 

    Thanks for the note about blastwave. Someone else also
    pointed me to blastwave, and it is very helpful.

    Fred
    --
    Fred Ma
    Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
    1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
    Canada, K1S 5B6
    Fred Guest

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139