Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.

Search:
 <<<Back 1 day (to 2022/04/14)Fwd 1 day (to 2022/04/16) >>>20220415 
artifexirc-bot <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Hi! I found in **configure** file --without-tesseract flag — it's help me on AIX5.3. But on AIX7.1 with ghostscript-9.55.0 I have new error:07:06.14 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> "./base/gxpcmap.c", line 1509.13: 1506-046 (S) Syntax error.07:06.15 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> "./base/gxpcmap.c", line 1511.18: 1506-045 (S) Undeclared identifier padev.07:06.16 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> "./base/gxpcmap.c", line 1595.9: 1506-046 (S) Syntax error.07:06.18 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> gmake: *** [base/lib.mak:2653: obj/gxpcmap.o] Error 107:06.19 
  <KenSharp> Well if it compiles on AIX 5.3 but not 7.1 then that shounds like a compiler difference to me.07:08.02 
  <chrisl> There isn't a "padev" identifier used around those line numbers07:09.27 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> I found this topic: https://community.ibm.com/community/user/power/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?GroupId=6211&MID=141097&CommunityKey=10c1d831-47ee-4d92-a138-b03f7896f7c9&ReturnUrl=%2Fcommunity%2Fuser%2Fcommunities%2Fcommunity-home%2Fdigestviewer%3FCommunityKey%3D10c1d831-47ee-4d92-a138-b03f7896f7c907:09.39 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> And tried to use 9.53.3 ghostscript — error reproduce.07:09.39 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/773567375458828329/964422234963865620/unknown.png07:09.40 
  <KenSharp> Thanks for checking Chris, I haven't had time yet07:09.52 
  <KenSharp> @chrisl there is a padev in the 9.55.0 sources at that location07:17.27 
  <KenSharp> Line 1509 is the declaration:07:17.58 
  <KenSharp> gx_device_pattern_accum *padev = (gx_device_pattern_accum *) adev;07:17.58 
  <KenSharp> SOrry 1511, not150907:18.07 
  <chrisl> Oh, okay...07:18.10 
  <chrisl> It looks pretty "declared" to me!07:18.26 
  <KenSharp> It is, I'm just wondering if the .h file is explicitly included07:18.42 
  <KenSharp> needs gxpcolor.h07:18.56 
  <KenSharp> And yes, that's included in the head of the .c file07:19.13 
  <chrisl> And any compiler ought to fail, if that were missing07:19.26 
  <KenSharp> Oh....07:19.54 
  <KenSharp> Someone has added a C++ comment!07:20.03 
  <KenSharp> That's almost certainly what it's complaining about07:20.13 
  <chrisl> There are C++ comments dotted around07:20.24 
  <chrisl> Including in pdfi 😦07:20.29 
  <KenSharp> @Kotyara_Single_Cat try changing :07:20.44 
  <KenSharp> // free pattern cache data that never got added to the dictionary07:20.45 
  <KenSharp> To :07:20.46 
  <KenSharp> /* free pattern cache data that never got added to the dictionary */07:20.47 
  <KenSharp> Yeah I've been meaning to go back and remove those. I used them in a couple of places as reminders that the comment needed removed07:21.14 
  <chrisl> lcms is also full of C++ comments07:22.13 
  <KenSharp> Well if that is the problem (and that's line 1509 in my source here) then @Kotyara_Single_Cat is going to have to find another compiler to use or a way to make it accept C++ comments.07:22.58 
  <chrisl> I wonder how the hell I find the xlc version....07:24.02 
  <KenSharp> You're logged into compile farm ?07:24.14 
  <chrisl> Yeh07:24.20 
  <KenSharp> -qversion07:24.37 
  <KenSharp> according to IBM07:24.41 
  <chrisl> IBM XL C/C++ for AIX, V12.1 (5765-J02, 5725-C72)07:25.29 
  <chrisl> Version: 12.01.0000.000007:25.29 
  <chrisl> Going to try gcc first, though07:25.45 
  <KenSharp> Fair enough, but the fact that it says C/C++ suggests it can cope with C++ comments....07:26.04 
  <KenSharp> @chrisl FWIW line 1509 in the 9.55.0 sources is line 1548 in yesterdays' HEAD. I haven't picked up Robin and Michael's commits yet07:27.42 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> I star compilation.07:27.46 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> What surprises me the most is the fact that everything works well on 5.3 without any changes in code...07:28.52 
  <KenSharp> Some kind of compiler difference would seem the most likely. You might like to compare the compiler versions07:29.15 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> AIX5.3:07:33.35 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> /usr/vacpp/bin/xlC -qversion07:33.36 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> IBM XL C/C++ Enterprise Edition for AIX, V9.007:33.37 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Version: 09.00.0000.000707:33.38 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> AIX7.1:07:33.39 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> /usr/vacpp/bin/xlC -qversion07:33.41 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> IBM XL C/C++ Enterprise Edition for AIX, V9.007:33.42 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Version: 09.00.0000.001907:33.43 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> AIX5.3:07:33.46 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> /usr/vacpp/bin/xlC -qversion07:33.47 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> IBM XL C/C++ Enterprise Edition for AIX, V9.007:33.49 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Version: **09.00.0000.0007**07:33.50 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> AIX7.1:07:33.51 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> /usr/vacpp/bin/xlC -qversion07:33.52 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> IBM XL C/C++ Enterprise Edition for AIX, V9.007:33.54 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Version: **09.00.0000.0019**07:33.55 
  <KenSharp> Well it's a very small difference, but I'm not familiar enough with IBM compilers to know if it's significant07:34.10 
  <chrisl> @Kotyara_Single_Cat With gcc 8.3.0, "./configure --without-tesseract && make -j4" just ran to completion. with a small tweak to the sources under "extract/". And I get a working binary from it07:36.04 
  <chrisl> The tweak to extract/ is because the compiler is over fussy about a function it thinks doesn't have a proper "return" at its end07:37.22 
  <chrisl> Trying xlc now....07:37.53 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Didn't help07:37.59 
  <KenSharp> Then I don't know what the compiler is complaining about.07:38.30 
  <chrisl> FWIW, I'm accessing AIX 7.1.507:38.45 
  <KenSharp> You oculd try removing the comment altogether07:38.46 
  <chrisl> Going to get a coffee... back shortly07:40.14 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Me too. To be honest I don't know C++ and I apologise if my messages stupid. Maybe full log can help?07:45.39 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/773567375458828329/964431295608414208/logs.txt07:45.40 
  <chrisl> Tesseract is the only C++ involved, which we're leaving out using the configure option07:46.47 
  <chrisl> Hmm, it's not actually calling xlc, it's calling "cc"....07:47.46 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Hmmm, I'll try to find "cc" version07:48.36 
  <chrisl> "cc" is probably a symlink, causing xlc to run in a specific configuration.07:49.11 
  <chrisl> So, xlc *does* fail to build for me, but not in the way you are seeing07:49.37 
  <chrisl> Oh, it looks like it's because memcmp is a macro <sigh>07:51.38 
  <chrisl> @Kotyara_Single_Cat So... gcc 8.3.0 on AIX 7.1.5 works for me - after, as I said, a very small tweak to the extract/ code07:52.57 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> You right. __AIX5.3:__ 9.0.0.7, __AIX7.1:__ 9.0.0.1908:14.01 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Oh, I found. AIX5.3 used gcc 8.3.0 compiler, AIX7.1 build with xLC 9.0.0.1908:17.47 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> @chrisl @KenSharp Thank you very much for help! I think using gcc on AIX7.1 should fix the problem08:17.48 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> Oh, I found. AIX5.3 used gcc 8.3.0 compiler, AIX7.1 build with xLC 9.0.0.1908:18.03 
  <Kotyara_Single_Cat> @chrisl @KenSharp Thank you very much for help! I think using gcc on AIX7.1 should fix the problem 🙂08:18.03 
  <KenSharp> Certainly using gcc is a better option from our point of view, since that is what we mainly support. Other C compilers shuold work of course, but there can be difficulties08:18.34 
  <chrisl> I will make a note to sort out the the problems that I can see with xlc08:19.18 
 <<<Back 1 day (to 2022/04/14)Forward 1 day (to 2022/04/16)>>> 
ghostscript.com #mupdf
Search: