[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

compiling Nulib on Solaris 2.5



     I am attempting to compile Nulib version 3.24 which I picked up from
ground.  I am using a Sparc-based system running Solaris 2.5.  I have taken
enough programming so that I am familiar with very basic C.  However, I know
nothing about system dependencies.  I tried to compile nulib without modifying
the nudefs.h because it appears to be right.  It seems to default to System V
which is what appears when I login.  Anyhow, here is the output from executing
the makefile.

cc -O -s   -c  numain.c
cc -O -s   -c  nuread.c
"nuread.c", line 308: warning: semantics of "<" change in ANSI C; use explicit
cast
"nuread.c", line 345: warning: semantics of "<" change in ANSI C; use explicit
cast
"nuread.c", line 555: warning: semantics of "<" change in ANSI C; use explicit
cast
cc -O -s   -c  nuview.c
cc -O -s   -c  nuadd.c
cc -O -s   -c  nuext.c
cc -O -s   -c  nupdel.c
cc -O -s   -c  nupak.c
cc -O -s   -c  nuetc.c
"nuetc.c", line 136: warning: semantics of "/" change in ANSI C; use explicit
cast
"nuetc.c", line 461: warning: Prototype mismatch in arg 1 for function rename:
        function : old style declaration int
        prototype: pointer to const char
"nuetc.c", line 461: warning: Prototype mismatch in arg 2 for function rename:
        function : old style declaration int
        prototype: pointer to const char
cc -O -s   -c  nublu.c
cc -O -s   -c  nucomp.c
"nucomp.c", line 191: warning: semantics of "/" change in ANSI C; use explicit
cast
"nucomp.c", line 192: warning: semantics of "/" change in ANSI C; use explicit
cast
cc -O -s   -c  nushk.c
"nushk.c", line 70: warning: typedef declares no type name
cc -O -s   -c  nusq.c
cc -O -s  numain.o nuread.o nuview.o nuadd.o nuext.o nupdel.o nupak.o nuetc.o
ublu.o nucomp.o nushk.o nusq.o -o nulib

In my experience with cc the "explicit cast" thing is something I've never
encountered.  Also, what about the other warnings.

     The executable is actually created but I wouldn't trust it with those odd
warnings.  Can anybody interpret it?




--
Adam Myrow