[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20030715: Réf. : 20030709: trouble with installation ofnetcdf 3.5.0

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: 20030715: Réf. : 20030709: trouble with installation ofnetcdf 3.5.0
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:55:12 -0600
>From: address@hidden
>Organization: ?
>Keywords: 200307091435.h69EZeLd007658 netCDF configure CFLAGS CPPFLAGS

Laetitia,

>I removed the -o part of the CFLAG and CPPFLAG but it still doesn't work.
>The difference is the last lines are replaced by "no such feature exists
>(-5,116)" in :

>configure:928: checking for top-level source-directory
>configure:938: checking for m4 preprocessor
>configure:945: checking for m4
>configure:1012: checking m4 flags
>configure:1085: checking C compiler "c89"
>configure:1094: c89 -c -O -o -DNDEBUG conftest.c 1>&5
>     c89 ERROR parsing -o:  no argument given for option
>     configure: failed program was:
>     #line 1087 "configure"
>     #include "confdefs.h"
>
>     int main() {
>
>     ; return 0; }
>
>Do you have an idea of what is the trouble?

Did you remember to do a 'make distclean' after you changed the
definitions of CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS?  If not, this is most likely your
problem.  The output you include below shows that the '-o' flag is
still being used as part of one of these flags:

configure:1094: c89 -c -O -o -DNDEBUG conftest.c 1>&5

When the CFLAGS and/or CPPFLAGS are correctly setup, this line should
look like:

configure:1094: c89 -c -O -DNDEBUG conftest.c 1>&5

>Thanks for helping

No worries.

Tom Yoksas