barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (08/24/90)
In a previous comp.text.tex article entitled "Where did my math
symbols go??", I complained of the mysterious behavior of TeX on our
DECsystem 5400 running Ultrix 4.0. THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED. If you plan
on installing TeX on a similar system, please read this!
If you are compiling UNIX TeX 2.95 (or perhaps other version) on a
DECstation or DECsystem running Ultrix 4.0, using "cc"...
DO NOT USE THE OPTIMIZER!!! (-O)
NUMEROUS mysterious problems were caused by use of the optimizer. I cannot
say whether the optimizer or TeX is at fault, but I do know that TeX runs
just fine on the DECstation without optimization.
Some problems were:
o Math font information did not get included in the DVI file.
Therefore, no math symbols showed up.
o LaTeX tabular environments do not generate anything in the
DVI file -- tables are totally missing.
o LaTeX complains that it is out of space, and that you need
to make "Big TeX", even when the document is not that large
or complex.
o LaTeX complains about certain constructs that should work,
like using a footnote inside a \chapter heading.
All of these problems stopped happening when I compiled without optimization.
They were DEFINITELY introduced by the optimized virtex program itself, and
not the input files, tfm files, or pk files. (Proof: the DVI files were
actually missing references to fonts like "cmsy10" that should have been
there, and I used the exact set of input and tfm files that worked perfectly
on another machine. More proof on request.)
Hey DEC!! Why did you set "make" to turn on optimization by
default??? BAD IDEA!
Dan
//////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett - Systems Administrator, Computer Science Department |
| The Johns Hopkins University, 34th and Charles Sts., Baltimore, MD 21218 |
| INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | |
| COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP |
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////acar@ee.umr.edu (08/24/90)
In article <6188@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: |> |> In a previous comp.text.tex article entitled "Where did my math |>symbols go??", I complained of the mysterious behavior of TeX on our |>DECsystem 5400 running Ultrix 4.0. THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED. If you plan |>on installing TeX on a similar system, please read this! |> |> If you are compiling UNIX TeX 2.95 (or perhaps other version) on a |>DECstation or DECsystem running Ultrix 4.0, using "cc"... |> |> DO NOT USE THE OPTIMIZER!!! (-O) |> I installed TeX82 V2.09 about a year ago on a DECstation without changing the default optimization, and it is still working perfectly (well, the metafont is not using X11). Your problem should be either with the Ultrix V4.0 (mine is still V3.1), or with the new version of TeX82. |>NUMEROUS mysterious problems were caused by use of the optimizer. I cannot |>say whether the optimizer or TeX is at fault, but I do know that TeX runs |>just fine on the DECstation without optimization. There is definitely something wrong with the optimizer, because with the optimizer on, one of the files in the perl software (another wonderful contribution of Larry Wall) is erroneously compiled. I know this, because when I compiled that file separately, everything was A-OK. |>Some problems were: |> |> o Math font information did not get included in the DVI file. |> Therefore, no math symbols showed up. |> o LaTeX tabular environments do not generate anything in the |> DVI file -- tables are totally missing. |> o LaTeX complains that it is out of space, and that you need |> to make "Big TeX", even when the document is not that large |> or complex. |> o LaTeX complains about certain constructs that should work, |> like using a footnote inside a \chapter heading. |> |>All of these problems stopped happening when I compiled without optimization. |>They were DEFINITELY introduced by the optimized virtex program itself, and |>not the input files, tfm files, or pk files. (Proof: the DVI files were |>actually missing references to fonts like "cmsy10" that should have been |>there, and I used the exact set of input and tfm files that worked perfectly |>on another machine. More proof on request.) I never had any of these problems. |> Hey DEC!! Why did you set "make" to turn on optimization by |>default??? BAD IDEA! I don't think, DEC did this. I think optimization is selected in the makefile which you have used to run the make. In my version, it is set at the beginning by OPT = -O. Well, at least you have installed it. Did you also install metafont or is its X11 version still not available? -- ****************************************************************** L. Acar Univ. of Missouri-Rolla ******************************************************************
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (08/24/90)
>In article <6188@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (me) writes: >|> Hey DEC!! Why did you set "make" to turn on optimization by >|>default??? BAD IDEA! In article <1321@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> acar@ee.umr.edu writes: >I don't think, DEC did this. I think optimization is selected in the >makefile which you have used to run the make. In my version, it is set >at the beginning by OPT = -O. Believe me, DEC did it. In Ultrix 4.0, create a files called "foo.c" and type (with NO Makefile in the directory) "make -n foo.o". $ make -n foo.o cc -O -c foo.c $ >Did you also install metafont or is its X11 version still not available? Yes, we did install an X11 version. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////