Re: Problems building Xemacs-21.5--i686-pc-Cygwin: PART III :=(D
David A. Cobb wrote:
As I reported earlier, I can't seem to get past missing symbols
in gdbm.
For starters, I did (CVS update -r r25-1-latest-beta) to start the day
in synch.
There were some updates taken, no indication in the ChangeLog.
From .../xemacs-21.5/i686-pc-cygwin/ did ../configure [options shown
below], and make. CFLAGS=--verbose. I'm not sure what it's telling
me. I see "-L/usr/lib" and that is where "libgdbm.dll.a" exists. I
can't tell whether the compiler recognizes it. Is ".dll" in the name a
secret known to gcc?
Not exactly. It is a secret known to ld, which is called by gcc.
checking for database support
checking for ndbm.h... yes
checking for dbm_open in -lgdbm... yes
This means that configure built a test program and successfully linked
it to libgdbm. So, that means you can successfully link to gdbm, and it
is properly installed on your system.
Prepending "-lgdbm" to $LIBS
Defining HAVE_DBM
/usr/bin/gcc -mcygwin --verbose ...
This is good.
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-cygwin/2.95.3-5/specs
gcc version 2.95.3-5 (cygwin special)
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-cygwin/2.95.3-5/collect2.exe --subsystem
windows -Bdynamic --dll-search-prefix=cyg -o temacs.exe /usr/lib/crt0.o
-L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/lib -L/usr/lib/w32api ...
But this is not good. The second step (and most important) of my advice
was to add "--verbose" to THIS command as well. Then, ld/collect will
explicitly list EVERY place it looks for EVERY dependency, indicating
whether or not the search was successful for EACH case.
Add --verbose to the collect2 command (if you're really ambitions,
change the executable to "ld" instead of "collect2").
linuxplay.o(.text+0x124c):linuxplay.c: multiple definition of
`play_sound_file'
ntplay.o(.text+0x418):ntplay.c: first defined here
linuxplay.o(.text+0x12cc):linuxplay.c: multiple definition of
`play_sound_data'
ntplay.o(.text+0x6f8):ntplay.c: first defined here
Didn't SOMEBODY suggest that you fix this linux sound problem FIRST, so
that your link failures are single-cause, and not multiple-cause? Why
did you refuse to follow that advice?
I am going to stop responding to this thread until you follow the advice
that has already been given. why should anyone help you if their advice will
only be ignored?
--Chuck