------- Comment #7 from pda at freeshell dot org 2005-12-04 00:06 -------
Subject: Re: Failure to build, <command line>:1:2: error: missing '(' after
predicate
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:00:39PM -0000, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot
ca wrote:
>
> ------- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-11-29
> 22:00 -------
> Subject: Re: Failure to build, <command line>:1:2: error: missing '(' after
> predicate
>
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:57:05PM -0000, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
> > wrote:
> > > The "-Aa" option is likely the problem. It's probably set in
> > > CFLAGS. If you're using the HP tools, put the "-Aa" in your CC
> > > define. There's more info in the manual on this.
> >
> > No, I never put "-Aa" in CFLAGS, it's being added inside the gcc build
> > itself. I tried your suggestion of adding "-Aa" to CC, but my build
> > fails much earlier in that case, due to not finding a definition of
> > "struct stat". Do you care to know more about that?
>
> Ok, this is comming from the configure test "checking for $CC option to
> accept ANSI C". This option shouldn't be used for the libstdc++ build
> but obviously it is...
Thanks for your help, it turns out you were almost right the first time.
Although I wasn't setting CFLAGS, I unwittingly had "-Aa" in my CXXFLAGS.
Stopping that solved my problem.
> In order to build GCC 3.4 and later, you need an ANSI compiler. You
> also need to include the full HP-UX namespace The "struct stat" error
> probably is a result of not providing the appropriate namespace defines
> in you CC define. -Aa provides strict ANSI. For example, these are
> the defines that I use for GCC builds prior to 4.0 under HP-UX 11.11:
>
> -D_HPUX_SOURCE -D_XOPEN_UNIX -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED
> -D_INCLUDE__STDC_A1_SOURCE -D_INCLUDE_XOPEN_SOURCE_500
>
> -D_HPUX_SOURCE is the important define. The others are needed for C++
> library support (wide characters, etc).
I've mostly always used HP's ANSI compiler in the default -Ae mode,
which includes -D_HPUX_SOURCE, however I discovered it also add +e,
which allows `long long'. All 3.4 and 4.0 gcc's I tried had `long
long' variables that required this. I found this odd, given that I
was building 64-bit code. I'd say this is a bug -- would you agree?
> Instead of trying to build C++ starting with an HP compiler, it's easier
> to just build C and then use this compiler to rebuild GCC with the additional
> languages that you want. It's always been tricky to bootstrap GCC using
> an HP compiler and its not tested much. You should use binutils (current
> CVS version is needed with GCC 4.1 and later for EH exception support).
I can appreciate that, and was almost about to resort to C only, but
my C++ is good now. Is binutils-2.16.1 fine for 4.0? I'll run the
tests and find out for myself anyway.
Thanks again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25025
