Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.infosystems.gopher > #790

Re: Jughead / Jugtail

Path csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.infosystems.gopher
Subject Re: Jughead / Jugtail
Date Fri, 03 Oct 2025 10:13:56 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 41
Message-ID <10bo44k$1htmk$4@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <109a29e$1q1n$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <slrn10dnqae.cuc.f6k@amoxtli.huld.re> <10bj9ca$2i21$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <10bljv5$tng3$3@dont-email.me> <10bm76f$1iee$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
Injection-Date Fri, 03 Oct 2025 09:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info dont-email.me; posting-host="c649b79a1297cc43078ce6d77e002b68"; logging-data="1636052"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DHc4jdF8vBHpU0RxlSOjO"
User-Agent Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock sha1:DvmgrNWJiHAYLEJ/U5E505AXE6I=
Xref csiph.com comp.infosystems.gopher:790

Show key headers only | View raw


On 2025-10-02, Arti F. Idiot wrote:

> On 10/2/25 4:25 AM, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2025-10-01, Arti F. Idiot wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/30/25 8:29 AM, f6k wrote:
>>>> For a live instance, I don't know; but for the code to build:
>>>> https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/jugtail
>>>
>>> Yup, that's the current code that fails to build.
>>
>> How does it fail to build?
>>
>
> It fails like this:
>
> (debian 12.1, amd64:)
>
> /usr/bin/ld: jugtail-search.o:../jugtail-1.0.6/search.c:175: multiple
> definition of `maxprocs';
> jugtail-getargs.o:../jugtail-1.0.6/jugtail.h:109: first defined here
>
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[2]: *** [Makefile:303: jugtail] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [Makefile:606: all-recursive] Error 1
> make: *** [Makefile:224: all] Error 2

The relevant bit here is probably the compiler and its version.

For GCC, version 10 changed the default behaviour regarding multiple
definitions, which seem to be the issue here.

    https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html

So it's possibly worth a try to compile with -fcommon:

    «As a workaround, legacy C code where all tentative definitions
    should be placed into a common block can be compiled with -fcommon.»

-- 
Nuno Silva

Back to comp.infosystems.gopher | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar


Thread

Jughead / Jugtail "Arti F. Idiot" <addr@is.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:43 -0600
  Re: Jughead / Jugtail f6k <f6k@huld.re> - 2025-09-30 16:29 +0200
    Re: Jughead / Jugtail "Arti F. Idiot" <addr@is.invalid> - 2025-10-01 07:12 -0600
      Re: Jughead / Jugtail Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-02 11:25 +0100
        Re: Jughead / Jugtail "Arti F. Idiot" <addr@is.invalid> - 2025-10-02 09:53 -0600
          Re: Jughead / Jugtail sean@conman.org - 2025-10-03 06:44 +0000
            Re: Jughead / Jugtail "Arti F. Idiot" <addr@is.invalid> - 2025-10-03 06:14 -0600
          Re: Jughead / Jugtail Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-03 10:13 +0100

csiph-web