Hello, On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:55:39AM -0700, Richard Haney wrote:
I decided to build the readline library although I suppose I may have been able to use "cygreadline5.dll"; in fact a test (after I had partially built the readline library) suggested that this is likely so; No. You'd better not mix Cygwin and MinGW libraries.
[snip]
In building CLN I had to do considerable finagling with the Makefiles. I don't think this is necessary. As a matter of fact, CLN builds with *unmodified makefiles* just fine. However, it is necessary to modify src/base/random/cl_random_from.cc. (see the attachment).
(Typically, as from earlier experience in building an earlier version of CLN and GiNaC, I had to temporarily comment out the mingw's make.exe so that Borland's make.exe GNU make (supplied with MinGW) works for me.
And I ran into one error with "make check" at "test_I_io", resulting in the output "Illegal number syntax" evidently from function read_number_bad_syntax() in "cl_read_err_bad.cc". This one fails for me too. I don't know why [yet]. Sorry, I'm not a CLN hacker...
[huge snip]
Problems with GiNaC:
[huge snip] I'm sorry to confuse you, but the only useful information in your report is: ----------several historic failures: Assertion failed: e.op(1).is_equal(_ex2), file indexed.cpp, line 701
I could send a zip file of my most recently modified Makefiles (particularly the .rtf backup versions that have manual modifications highlighted in boldface) and modified .cc, .cpp, and .h files if anyone is interested. Leaving aside weird format, I don't think staring through diffs of automatically generated files is a good idea.
Best regards, Alexei. -- All science is either physics or stamp collecting.