tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) (01/31/89)
I'm having difficulty getting perl 2.0 patchlevel 0 to work on my machine. We have a 3B2/600 running SysV 3.1.1. Configure runs as expected, and everybody compiles fine. However, when I try to run the tests in the t directory, I run into problems. The base tests run up until base.lex, which gives me: 1..7 #1 :x: eq :x: ok 1 ok 2 not ok 3 ok 4 ok 5 7964: terminated with signal 10 -- core dumped At which point the test script gives up - reasonably, given that the parser appears to be malfunctioning. Am I missing some patches? We just downloaded this from the archives recently, so I wouldn't be suprised. (How long does something of this complexity usually last at patchlevel 0?) Barring that, would someone please point and laugh at my mistake? tim -- Tim J Ihde INTERNET: tim@attdso.att.com (201) 898-6687 UUCP: att!attdso!tim "Blimey - this redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I'd thought!" - Dennis Moore and various Presidents
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (02/01/89)
In article <744@attdso.att.com> tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) writes:
: Am I missing some patches? We just downloaded this from the archives
: recently, so I wouldn't be suprised. (How long does something of this
: complexity usually last at patchlevel 0?)
There are 18 patches for 2.0 perl.
How long something lasts at patchlevel 0 depends on how you count,
but generally it's a negative value--there's already 4 or 5 patches
by the time it comes out on comp.sources.
Since you are on the internet, you can just ftp the patches (or the
kits at patchlevel 18) from my machine (128.149.8.43).
In a few weeks you'll be able to ftp the kits for 3.0 beta perl.
(By the way, I'm posting this from the terminal room at USENIX. Fun!)
Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.govmike@raven.TELCOM.TEK.COM (Mike Ewan) (02/02/89)
In article <744@attdso.att.com> tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) writes: > ... The base tests run up until base.lex, which gives me: Stuff deleted... >Barring that, would someone please point and laugh at my mistake? No mistake unless I'm doing the same one. I'm at patch level 12 and get the same response. I'm on a Tek 4315 running UTek 3.1 (4.2bsd). -- Michael Ewan ucbvax...\ Tektronix Inc. decvax....\ (503) 627-6468 uw-beaver.... >!tektronix!nesa!raven!mike mike@raven.TELCOM.TEK.COM uunet..../
tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) (02/08/89)
In article <4349@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >In article <744@attdso.att.com> tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) writes: >: Am I missing some patches? We just downloaded this from the archives >: recently, so I wouldn't be suprised. > >There are 18 patches for 2.0 perl. I retrieved all the patches from your server, and applied them in turn. However, I still got the core dump when running base.lex. After trying various things, I decided to try compiling again with -g and running under sdb. Low and behold, this fixed the problem. More specifically, removing the -O for debugging solved the problem. In other words, be cautious with the optimizer when compiling perl on a 3B2/600 running System V 3.1.1. It looks like there are problems. You might want to consider asking the installer in Configure if (s)he wants to use the optimizer or not. >(By the way, I'm posting this from the terminal room at USENIX. Fun!) Gee, some guys get all the excitement. :-) >Larry Wall tim -- Tim J Ihde INTERNET: tim@attdso.att.com (201) 898-6687 UUCP: att!attdso!tim "Blimey - this redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I'd thought!" - Dennis Moore and various Presidents
jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor) (02/09/89)
In article <763@attdso.att.com>, tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) writes: > > I retrieved all the patches from your server, and applied them in turn. > However, I still got the core dump when running base.lex. After trying > various things, I decided to try compiling again with -g and running under > sdb. Low and behold, this fixed the problem. More specifically, removing > the -O for debugging solved the problem. When compiling perl2 on an Altos 2086 with Xenix 3.4b, the -O option also produced a binary that would not run. With the -O removed, everything ran just fine. (Well, actually there were other problems, such as Altos's yacc not being able to swallow perl.y, and not having the bcopy()-type functions or the memcpy()-type functions, but I managed to get around most of this.) > >(By the way, I'm posting this from the terminal room at USENIX. Fun!) > > Gee, some guys get all the excitement. :-) If I would've known they were going to have a terminal room, I would've gone. 8-). --jim ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@FSC.COM Filtration Sciences Corporation 615/821-4022 x. 651
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (02/16/89)
As quoted from <382@tiamat.fsc.com> by jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor): +--------------- | > sdb. Low and behold, this fixed the problem. More specifically, removing | > the -O for debugging solved the problem. | | When compiling perl2 on an Altos 2086 with Xenix 3.4b, the -O option also | produced a binary that would not run. With the -O removed, everything +--------------- The Altos 386 series (500/1000/2000) cc -O works fine on perl2. I did have quite a few problems hacking around bugs in the Plexus sys3 (NOT sys5) compiler, though.... ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser