Prev: Why so little parallelism?
Next: First Next-Gen CELL Processor: 2 PPEs - 32 SPEs - at least 1 Teraflop
From: shaolin.xie on 3 Nov 2006 10:18
Paste your exact error message please ,I have encountered similar error
previously when I tried to compile it on saloris. Because I lack the
administrating privelge to update lex tool,I finally give up and
compile it on an AMD64 Redhat Linux instead.
TastyWheat wrote:
> Okay, thanks for the help, but it's not compiling. I'm trying to
> compile it on an i686 linux machine (ubuntu I think). I would've
> compiled it on a solaris machine but I couldn't get simplescalar to
> compile on solaris.
>
> I'm getting errors on "insn-output.c". The first error is a missing
> double-quote character and almost all of the others are stray '\'
> errors. Well, the extra back-slash errors are all on the same line but
> it spits it out like 50 times.

From: TastyWheat on 7 Nov 2006 21:16
shaolin.xie wrote:
> Paste your exact error message please ,I have encountered similar error
> previously when I tried to compile it on saloris. Because I lack the
> administrating privelge to update lex tool,I finally give up and
> compile it on an AMD64 Redhat Linux instead.

Well, I got rid of all of the stray '\' errors. I found another
resource that said I need to get rid of them and make one big line. So
it got passed that and then we got the error:

../xgcc -B./ -DCROSS_COMPILE -DIN_GCC -g -I./include -c dummy.c
as: unrecognized option `-EL'
make: *** [libgcc1.null] Error 1

It's probably because we didn't compile binutils (simpleutils). We had
problems compiling that too. We get the error:

ldlex.l:589: error: 'yy_current_buffer' undeclared

We're compiling these on linux (ubuntu) since we've had slightly more
success with it.

From: TastyWheat on 7 Nov 2006 22:32
Well, we've gotten over another hump but ran into another wall. We're
using the school computers so we don't have full permissions to install
things (">make install" does not work). So far "simpleutils-990811"
and "simplesim" have compiled just fine. So the libraries or whatever
should be there, they're just not in the right place. Can I compile
the gcc without performing the "make install" commands?

From: shaolin.xie on 8 Nov 2006 09:13
well ,I havn't tried that ,but I thought it would very tricky ....
"TastyWheat дµÀ£º
"
> Well, we've gotten over another hump but ran into another wall. We're
> using the school computers so we don't have full permissions to install
> things (">make install" does not work). So far "simpleutils-990811"
> and "simplesim" have compiled just fine. So the libraries or whatever
> should be there, they're just not in the right place. Can I compile
> the gcc without performing the "make install" commands?

From: Thor Lancelot Simon on 8 Nov 2006 10:41
In article <1162956723.697746.296610(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
TastyWheat <m.kail(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Well, we've gotten over another hump but ran into another wall. We're
>using the school computers so we don't have full permissions to install
>things (">make install" does not work). So far "simpleutils-990811"
>and "simplesim" have compiled just fine. So the libraries or whatever
>should be there, they're just not in the right place. Can I compile
>the gcc without performing the "make install" commands?

You need to configure gcc and binutils so that they will install into
locations you can write. This is easy to do by applying appropriate
options to the configure script in each case.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls(a)rek.tjls.com

"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Why so little parallelism?
Next: First Next-Gen CELL Processor: 2 PPEs - 32 SPEs - at least 1 Teraflop