CM Graff writes:
> Bottom line is this: the only bigger waste of time than this thread is
> the dying AIX itself, and the unmaintained machines. Were the cfarm to
> install its own decisions of OS I feel quite confident that this AIX
> would not be amongst those chosen,
Presumably the reason the
CM Graff via cfarm-users writes:
> Furthermore, this probably represent an error in the installation
> process of gcc. as that symlink is made by default.
GCC's make install target does not install a 'cc' symlink.
Some distros add it.
Mark
___
cf
Mark, this appears to be simply a degeneration in the POSIX
specification for `cc' which was removed and replaced with a patently
unportable command `c99'. Probably because of nonsensical corporate
influence. I indeed agree at this point that it should be left alone
and that no symlink to `cc' shou
> No matter how the cake is cut, our AIX machines (and probably AIX in
> general) need to symlink the default system compiler to `cc'.
No, please do NOT put such a symlink in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin.
The compilefarm machines are used for portability testing. They should
be as similar as the ma
Furthermore, this probably represent an error in the installation
process of gcc. as that symlink is made by default.
Graff
On 10/11/17, CM Graff wrote:
> In order for makefiles to be portable without a configure script, one
> can _not_ hard code CC = gcc, or CC = clang for that matter.
> gcc111.
In order for makefiles to be portable without a configure script, one
can _not_ hard code CC = gcc, or CC = clang for that matter.
gcc111.fsffrance.org seems to work fine with basic testing with the
`gcc' binary. However, this is incorrect. There needs to be in the
very least a symlink from `gcc' t
