From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 6 11:51:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF8116A4CE for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from atlas.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (atlas.informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.194.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728BA43D2F for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:51:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stolz@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) Received: from i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (menelaos.informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.194.73]) with ESMTP id i76Bpaum012779; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:51:36 +0200 Received: (from stolz@localhost)i76BpaVS070357; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:51:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stolz) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:51:36 +0200 From: Volker Stolz To: Stefan Walter Message-ID: <20040806115136.GM7280@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> References: <200408051231.i75CVbxG074422@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040806104108.GA10460@kyuzo.dunkelkammer.void> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040806104108.GA10460@kyuzo.dunkelkammer.void> X-PGP-Key: finger vs@foldr.org X-PGP-Id: 0x3FD1B6B5 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org cc: Thomas Gellekum Subject: Re: ports/70020: [MAINTAINER] games/gnocatan: update to 0.8.1.30 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:51:38 -0000 Am 06. Aug 2004 um 12:41 CEST schrieb Stefan Walter: > [Cc'd Thomas Gellekum, who happened to also send patches for the update > yesterday.] > > Volker Stolz, 05.08.04, 14:31h CEST: > > > Does not build on -STABLE. This looks like a GCC 2 vs. 3 issue. Usually, > > the required patches are very small and can be generated by hand in a jiffy > > Hm...I looked at the code, but I don't see what the cause of this could > be. My knowledge about the differences between gcc 2 and 3 is limited, > and I don't have a -STABLE box to test it myself. > > If anyone of you has any hints at what might be causing the build to > fail, please let me know. If not, I'll send the authors a mail about it. Simply set USE_GCC=2.95 temporarily in the Makefile or find out what's the required option for requiring c89-compliance in CFLAGS. The usual source of complaints is variable declarations NOT at the beginning of blocks, e.g. ...{ ... i=i+1; int j = i; ... -- http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/stolz/ *** PGP *** S/MIME L-Attriwutgrammatik