From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13330 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2006 22:40:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 13321 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Sep 2006 22:40:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailrelay1.futureelectronics.com (HELO mailrelay1.futureelectronics.com) (209.5.122.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:40:49 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO montremsg32.na.future.ca) ([10.210.32.82]) by mailrelay1.futureelectronics.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2006 18:40:47 -0400 X-BrightmailFiltered: true content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: gdb build error Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3CE39F664D1EE14293F6923CD00E42C704CD96A3@montremsg32.na.future.ca> From: "Ray Duran" To: "Joel Brobecker" Cc: Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, Yes, I do see a warning before my error that says: "Warning: ada-lex.c older than ada-lex.l and flex not available". However, I have done a search of ada-lex.c and cannot find anywhere. That in fact make the message a bit of an anomaly, since the warning says that ada-lex.c is older but it does not exist. If I re-downloaded insight tar 6.5 or an earlier version could I configure and build=20 Insight over what I have already done? There isn't any need for deleting old insight stuff? Thanks, -Ray=20 -----Original Message----- From: Joel Brobecker [mailto:brobecker@adacore.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:18 PM To: Ray Duran; gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb build error > > You'll need flex to generate ada-lex.c. Has this tool been installed > > on your machine? >=20 > Wasn't this supposed to be pregenerated in release tarballs? Humpf, of course, I should have paid more attention to the version number. I just double-checked, it is part of the release tarball. The only scenario that I can think of that might lead to this problem would be that the timestamp of ada-lex.c somehow became earlier than the timestamp of ada-lex.l, so the Makefile determined that ada-lex.c should be rebuilt. When I unpacked the sources from gnu.org on a linux machine, the timestamps were in the right order. While we look at this, the obvious workaround that would work, assuming my theory is right, would be to "touch gdb/ada-lex.c" before doing the build. --=20 Joel