Re: Compilation problem under SuSE 9.0
>From Erik.Kunze@philosys.de Mon Mar 1 08:06:11 2004
>> >I have problem compiling the cdrtools 2.01a25 under SuSE 9.0.
>> >The error message is:
>>
>> >/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-suse-linux/3.3.1/../../../../i586-suse-linux/bin/ld: cannot find -lscg
>>
>> >and in libscg I get the following error message:
>>
>> > ==> COMPILING "OBJ/i686-linux-cc/scsihack.o"
>> >In file included from scsihack.c:127:
>> >scsi-linux-sg.c: In function `sg_settimeout':
>> >scsi-linux-sg.c:1135: error: `HZ' undeclared (first use in this function)
>> >scsi-linux-sg.c:1135: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
>> >scsi-linux-sg.c:1135: error: for each function it appears in.)
>> >make[2]: *** [OBJ/i686-linux-cc/scsihack.o] Error 1
>> >make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/src/cdrtools-2.01/libscg'
>> >make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
>> >make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/src/cdrtools-2.01/libscg'
>>
>>
>> If SuSE comes with defective include files, you need to send a bug report
>> to SuSE.....
>Are you sure about this? HZ is no longer a constant value. To get
>the value for HZ one needs to call a function, since it can change
>during runtime :-o
The biggest problem is that he does not mention what Linux he is using.
The next biggest problem is that with e.g. Linux 2.5 and later a lot of
bugs have been introduced into the system include files.
As the Linux Kernel developers don't like to fix their bugs, it is
hard to find out what really happens.
For this reason, I need to asume that _all_ system include file related
problems are caused by broken kernel include files.
EVEN IF you were true, on a decent platform like Solaris, there is a migration
path like this in Solaris sys/param.h:
#define HZ ((clock_t)_sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK))
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Reply to: