Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #101837
| From | Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: linking precedence rules |
| Date | 2017-01-15 01:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee0ucrFpaphU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <87vatkquaq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <edrmliFgh80U1@mid.individual.net> <87shonp7gy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <eduhhkF718uU1@mid.individual.net> <o5d400$p1e$1@dont-email.me> |
On 1/14/2017 4:03 AM, BartC wrote: > On 14/01/2017 11:49, Michael Holiday wrote: > >> I disagree with you that my mingw install is broken. The one I'm trying >> to link to is hot off the presses, but there's 3 others on this machine >> that have altered paths and the like. One less tonight. What strikes me >> is how different they are in their architecture. > > If you have more than one version of gcc on a Windows machine, my > experience is that they will clash with each other. > > You would think that, if you start the main executable from a place like > c:\gcc\bin\gcc.exe, that it would look for associated files in the same > location or using a relative path from that location. But gcc favoured > searching through all the PATH paths until it found a file with the > right name. Never mind that it belonged to a different version or even a > different application! > I think that happened here. So my path variable looks like Kanye West's chain of fools: C:\Users\Fred\Documents>path PATH=C:\ProgramData\Oracle\Java\javapath;C:\Perl\site\bin;C:\Perl\bin;C:\Program Files\Broadcom\Broadcom 802.11 Network Adapter\Driver;;C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\iCLS Client\;C:\Program Files\Intel\iCLS Client\;C:\WINDOWS\system32;C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\System32\Wbem;C:\WINDOWS\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\;C:\Program Files\Intel\Intel(R) Management Engine Components\DAL;C:\Program Files\Intel\Intel(R) Management Engine Components\IPT;C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Management Engine Components\DAL;C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Management Engine Components\IPT;C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\OpenCL SDK\2.0\bin\x86;C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\OpenCL SDK\2.0\bin\x64;C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\110\Tools\Binn\;C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_21\bin;C:\Program Files (x86)\QuickTime\QTSystem\;C:\Strawberry\c\bin;C:\Strawberry\perl\site\bin;C:\Strawberry\perl\bin;C:\Program Files (x86)\Skype\Phone\;C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Kits\10\Windows Performance Toolkit\;C:\Users\Fred\Documents\perl5\bin;C:\Users\Fred\perl5\bin;C:\Ruby21-x64\bin;C:\Users\Fred\AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps;C:\MinGW\bin I deleted the perl install at C:\Perl\site\bin; and C:\Perl\bin; . These are guaranteed to have C compilers as perl is implemented in C. Although the entry for that rogue perl install is still in the path and recent, dammit, 2/3 down the way one sees: C:\Strawberry\c\bin; This is where gcc was supposed to be processed, so I have an idea why my install is wonky. I thought it was cleaner and newer than all this. Tried the band-aid measure of setting the path, but that won't do: C:\Users\Fred\Documents>>SET PATH=%PATH%;C:\MinGW\bin C:\Users\Fred\Documents>path PATH=C:\ProgramData\Oracle\Java\javapath;C:\Perl\site\bin;C:\Perl\bin;C: ... C:\MinGW\bin;C:\MinGW\bin I used to just plow under my os at this point and start over, but I lack all kinds of things to pull that off, like a system disc and a reliable disc reader. I'm gonna see what happens when I make fundamental changes to this as well as LIBRARY_PATH. -- Michael
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-07 23:49 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-08 21:20 +1300
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-08 01:32 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 11:08 -0500
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 03:25 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0100
OT Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:18 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-01-08 15:38 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 18:46 -0500
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 04:13 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 12:21 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 00:23 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-16 06:20 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 05:10 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-02-04 17:12 +0100
Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 20:47 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-13 01:58 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 10:41 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 03:49 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 12:03 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 14:02 +0100
Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 13:46 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:23 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:31 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 16:18 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 17:49 +0100
Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 17:21 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 10:12 +1300
Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 21:59 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:12 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 11:39 +1300
Re: linking precedence rules Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-14 16:03 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 11:51 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 02:04 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 23:48 +0100
Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 20:28 +0000
The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:14 +0000
Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 14:29 +0000
Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:20 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 01:40 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-15 11:43 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-18 19:55 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:22 +0000
Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 16:05 +0100
Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 15:37 +0000
Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 16:06 +0000
Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 19:37 +0100
Re: comparison logic BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-13 18:42 +0000
Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 18:49 +0000
Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 20:50 +0000
Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-14 01:05 -0800
Re: comparison logic Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:27 -0800
Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 13:56 -0800
Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-15 14:45 +0000
Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 20:42 -0800
Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-15 21:04 -0800
Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 04:47 -0800
Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 11:40 -0800
Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 16:42 -0800
Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 18:45 -0800
Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 21:03 -0800
Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 08:07 -0800
Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 08:50 -0800
Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 12:15 -0800
Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 12:38 -0800
Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 14:13 -0800
Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 14:45 -0800
Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-12 10:20 -0800
Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-12 14:32 +0000
Re: linking precedence rules James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-12 13:33 -0500
csiph-web