Re: [AD] [AL] trouble building on IRIX 6.5

[Stepan Roh <stepan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

(this mail should be on conductors list, so I'm sending it here)

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Hein Zelle wrote:

> I'm trying to build allegro on a Silicon Graphics O2, running IRIX 6.5
> as far as I can tell.
>
> > uname -a
> IRIX bgwd68 6.5 04151556 IP32
>
> (whatever that may exactly mean :)
>
> Allegro version: WIP 3.9.33 (.tar.gz)

Get CVS version, some of my patches for IRIX are there. See
http://www.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~sroh7497/allegro/ for further information.

> I ran into a few problems:
> - sh fixunix.sh doesn't work because the double quotes around "sh -c
>   ...." make the {} pairs for find literal, causing the script to
>   fail. Solution: I wrote a small script containing the commands to be
>   executed, and call 'find ...... -exec fixscript {} \;'

I had no problems with that, but I'm running bash, which is not probably
your case.

> - alinline.h causes a lot of warnings about constness being discarded
>   in functions bmp_read_line, bmp_unwrite_line

Corrected in CVS.

> - ./src/i386/icsprite.c: In function `get_compiled_sprite':
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:296: structure has no member named `planar'
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:302: structure has no member named `proc'
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:303: structure has no member named `proc'
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:307: structure has no member named `proc'
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:307: structure has no member named `proc'
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:309: structure has no member named `proc'
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c: In function `destroy_compiled_sprite':
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:329: structure has no member named `proc'
> ./src/i386/icsprite.c:330: structure has no member named `proc'
>
>   (That seems to make sense: it's a source file in the i386 directory
>   and this machine cannot use i386 assembly.) Why is it compiling this
>   file? Is it supposed to? I can fix this by calling get_rle_sprite
>   and destroy_rle_sprite within get_compiled_sprite and
>   destroy_compiled_sprite, but I'm not sure if that is the right
>   fix. Should these functions exist at all?

Strange... I had no problems with that, I'll check it now.

Have a nice day.

Stepan Roh