rattan@frith.msu.edu (Ishwar Rattan) (02/18/91)
The recently posted patches to badblocks.c were applied to the 1.5 vesion of badblocks.c (crc came out 14337, it was 13140 in 1.5). The attempt to compile was a failure: "./../fs/type.h", line 5: NAME_MAX undefined "./../fs/type.h", line 5: (warning) empty array declaration . . make: Error code 256 Did anybody else see the same problem. - ishwar (rattan@frith.egr.msu.edu)
HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen) (02/20/91)
I think NAME_MAX is only defined if you specify -D_POSIX_SOURCE when compiling. C.v.W.
peter@pa3ebv.nl.mugnet.org (Peter J. de Vrijer) (02/20/91)
In article <1991Feb18.150350.9764@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, rattan@frith.msu.edu (Ishwar Rattan) wrote: > > The recently posted patches to badblocks.c were applied > to the 1.5 vesion of badblocks.c (crc came out 14337, it was > 13140 in 1.5). The attempt to compile was a failure: > "./../fs/type.h", line 5: NAME_MAX undefined > "./../fs/type.h", line 5: (warning) empty array declaration > . > . > make: Error code 256 > Did anybody else see the same problem. Yes I did. But after carefully reading the header of the cdiff file I came to the conclusion that it was really an upgrade from 1.5 to 1.6.11 Minix. It would have been better if Andy had mentioned this explicitely in his posting. Regards from Peter. Peter J. de Vrijer | UUCP: peter@pa3ebv.nl.mugnet.org Tel: +31 38 660735 | packet radio: peter@pa3ebv.ampr.org Ministerlaan 9 | 8014 PL Zwolle | "And yet I'm happy, The Netherlands | I can't figure it out." Snoopy
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (02/22/91)
In article <9102202711@pa3ebv.nl.mugnet.org> peter@pa3ebv.nl.mugnet.org (Peter J. de Vrijer) writes: >Yes I did. But after carefully reading the header of the cdiff file I came >to the conclusion that it was really an upgrade from 1.5 to 1.6.11 Minix. >It would have been better if Andy had mentioned this explicitely in his >posting. Sorry. I must have taken it from my own hard disk, which by definition is the most recent, current, up-to-date copy. That may well have been 1.6.11 and been incompatible with 1.5 because I am now only running the ANSI C compiler on my machine to give it a solid test. Going over to ANSI C affected some of the headers, etc. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)