Re: Version of GCC to use?, posted by Steve Jones on Mon May 9 20:58:11 2005
|
> > I ask because I get a dependency that I did not have before with 2.5.3.
> > Compiling with my same 'ole gcc 2.95.2 I see that I now need mxml.h and
> > strlcpy.h. Trying to compile under gcc 3.4 results in all kinds of errors.
>
> mxml.h and strlcpy.h are part of the elog tar ball. When untar'ed, they get copied
> into a separate directory:
>
> ...
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 15090 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.japanese
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 17587 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.spanish
> drwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 0 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 45577 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.c
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 2198 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.c
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 4359 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.h
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 567 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.h
>
> I have right now no access to 3.4. Once I get it, I will address the errors
> occuring there.
Ah, now I need to figure out how to pickup the new includes.
BTW, personally I wouldn't take my word regarding the 3.4 errors -- I was simply
trying an alternative version and it is likely that the way ours is configured is the
problem.
Thanks! |
|
Re: Version of GCC to use?, posted by Steve Jones on Mon May 9 21:08:56 2005
|
> > > I ask because I get a dependency that I did not have before with 2.5.3.
> > > Compiling with my same 'ole gcc 2.95.2 I see that I now need mxml.h and
> > > strlcpy.h. Trying to compile under gcc 3.4 results in all kinds of errors.
> >
> > mxml.h and strlcpy.h are part of the elog tar ball. When untar'ed, they get copied
> > into a separate directory:
> >
> > ...
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 15090 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.japanese
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 17587 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.spanish
> > drwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 0 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 45577 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.c
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 2198 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.c
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 4359 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.h
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 567 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.h
> >
> > I have right now no access to 3.4. Once I get it, I will address the errors
> > occuring there.
>
> Ah, now I need to figure out how to pickup the new includes.
> BTW, personally I wouldn't take my word regarding the 3.4 errors -- I was simply
> trying an alternative version and it is likely that the way ours is configured is the
> problem.
>
> Thanks!
Ok, now I see the issue - the tar extract created the mxml directory in the root (not
under the created directory elog-2.5.9). Is there a reason why these includes are not
placed in the src dir like the regex.h/.c include? |
Re: Version of GCC to use?, posted by Steve Jones on Mon May 9 21:14:53 2005
|
> > > > I ask because I get a dependency that I did not have before with 2.5.3.
> > > > Compiling with my same 'ole gcc 2.95.2 I see that I now need mxml.h and
> > > > strlcpy.h. Trying to compile under gcc 3.4 results in all kinds of errors.
> > >
> > > mxml.h and strlcpy.h are part of the elog tar ball. When untar'ed, they get copied
> > > into a separate directory:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 15090 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.japanese
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 17587 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.spanish
> > > drwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 0 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 45577 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.c
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 2198 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.c
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 4359 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.h
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke 567 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.h
> > >
> > > I have right now no access to 3.4. Once I get it, I will address the errors
> > > occuring there.
> >
> > Ah, now I need to figure out how to pickup the new includes.
> > BTW, personally I wouldn't take my word regarding the 3.4 errors -- I was simply
> > trying an alternative version and it is likely that the way ours is configured is the
> > problem.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>
> Ok, now I see the issue - the tar extract created the mxml directory in the root (not
> under the created directory elog-2.5.9). Is there a reason why these includes are not
> placed in the src dir like the regex.h/.c include?
Ack, ok, I moved the includes into src and tried re-compiling -- and received several
"undefined symbol" errors from the linker. Clearly the libraries cannot be moved into src? |
|
Re: Version of GCC to use?, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon May 9 21:17:29 2005
|
> Ok, now I see the issue - the tar extract created the mxml directory in the root (not
> under the created directory elog-2.5.9). Is there a reason why these includes are not
> placed in the src dir like the regex.h/.c include?
Yes. I use these files in several other projects as well, and want to maintain only a
single copy. So I have
elogd-x.x.x/
elogd-x.x.x/src/
....
mxml/
mxml/strlcpy.h
mxml/strlcpy.c
mxml/mxml.c
mxml/mxml.c
...
other-project-x.x.x/
other-project-x.x.x/
So both elogd and "other-project" can use strlcpy.c and mxml.c. If I would copy it to
elogd-x.x.x/src and fix a bug there, "other-project" would use a separate copy and not
profit from the bug fix. So I would have to mainain verious copies of the same file, which
make things complicated. I compile everything also under windows, so I cannot use soft
links. If there is a better way of how to do it, please let me know. |
Re: Version of GCC to use?, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon May 9 21:22:46 2005
|
[ritt@pc5082 /tmp]$ tar -xzvf elog-2.5.9-2.tar.gz
elog-2.5.9/
elog-2.5.9/doc/
elog-2.5.9/doc/adminguide.html
...
mxml/
mxml/mxml.c
mxml/strlcpy.c
mxml/mxml.h
mxml/strlcpy.h
[ritt@pc5082 /tmp]$ cd elog-2.5.9
[ritt@pc5082 elog-2.5.9]$ make
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -o elog src/elog.c
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o regex.o src/regex.c
... skipping warnings ...
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o mxml.o ../mxml/mxml.c
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o strlcpy.o ../mxml/strlcpy.c
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -I../mxml -o elogd src/elogd.c regex.o
mxml.o strlcpy.o
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -o elconv src/elconv.c
[ritt@pc5082 elog-2.5.9]$
--------------
No undefined functions here. I guess you have an old Makefile? Just use the complete tar
package from the last version. |
|
Re: Version of GCC to use?, posted by Steve Jones on Mon May 9 23:30:11 2005
|
> [ritt@pc5082 /tmp]$ tar -xzvf elog-2.5.9-2.tar.gz
> elog-2.5.9/
> elog-2.5.9/doc/
> elog-2.5.9/doc/adminguide.html
> ...
> mxml/
> mxml/mxml.c
> mxml/strlcpy.c
> mxml/mxml.h
> mxml/strlcpy.h
> [ritt@pc5082 /tmp]$ cd elog-2.5.9
> [ritt@pc5082 elog-2.5.9]$ make
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -o elog src/elog.c
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o regex.o src/regex.c
> ... skipping warnings ...
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o mxml.o ../mxml/mxml.c
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o strlcpy.o ../mxml/strlcpy.c
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -I../mxml -o elogd src/elogd.c regex.o
> mxml.o strlcpy.o
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -o elconv src/elconv.c
> [ritt@pc5082 elog-2.5.9]$
>
> --------------
> No undefined functions here. I guess you have an old Makefile? Just use the complete tar
> package from the last version.
Ok, now I have it. Old Makefile because I had to perform some deletions to make "make" work
right under Solaris. Basically, I took out the ifdef structures - "make" was blowing up on
these. Everything now compiles perfectly -- don't change anything. Thanks for that last pointer.
Steve |
conditional attributes, posted by W.Koster on Thu Apr 9 10:39:34 2009
|
I'm (ab)using elog as a database and would like to use conditional attributes, like:
Attributes = PC Name, Operating System, Version, Distribution
Options Operating System = Linux{1}, Windows{2}
{1} Show Attributes Edit = Operating System, Distribution, PC Name
{2} Show Attributes Edit = Operating System, PC Name, Version
Problem is that there are several conditions and the list of attributes is rather long. Also, since it's a
rather dynamic environment I have to make new attributes all the time, and adding them to all "show attributes"
lists is not only tedious, but bound to cause errors as well.
So...
I was thinking, would it be an idea to make the list of attributes to be shown or hidden on a per attribute base.
Like:
Attributes = PC Name, Operating System, Version, Distribution
# hide specific attributes
Hide attributes = Distribution, PC Name
# or configure which fields should be shown allways
Show Attributes = Operating System, Version
# add attributes based on OS
Options Operating System = Linux{1}, Windows{2}
{1} Show Attribute Edit = Distribution
{2} Show Attribute Edit = PC Name
(just thinking out loud here). |
|
Re: conditional attributes, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Apr 9 10:52:29 2009
|
> I'm (ab)using elog as a database and would like to use conditional attributes, like:
>
> Attributes = PC Name, Operating System, Version, Distribution
> Options Operating System = Linux{1}, Windows{2}
> {1} Show Attributes Edit = Operating System, Distribution, PC Name
> {2} Show Attributes Edit = Operating System, PC Name, Version
>
> Problem is that there are several conditions and the list of attributes is rather long. Also, since it's a
> rather dynamic environment I have to make new attributes all the time, and adding them to all "show attributes"
> lists is not only tedious, but bound to cause errors as well.
>
>
> So...
>
> I was thinking, would it be an idea to make the list of attributes to be shown or hidden on a per attribute base.
>
>
>
> Like:
>
> Attributes = PC Name, Operating System, Version, Distribution
>
> # hide specific attributes
> Hide attributes = Distribution, PC Name
>
> # or configure which fields should be shown allways
> Show Attributes = Operating System, Version
>
> # add attributes based on OS
> Options Operating System = Linux{1}, Windows{2}
> {1} Show Attribute Edit = Distribution
> {2} Show Attribute Edit = PC Name
>
> (just thinking out loud here).
Sure such a think can be implemented, but I have no time right now to do so. I will put it on the wish list. |
|