Asp Forum - whose c compiler has command just "c" ?

Orson Cart

8/31/2011 2:35:00 PM

I was attempting to make an open-source package released by
a large corporation.
The install script fails saying there is no "c" in my path.
When I look at the context of the "c" command in the script,
it appears to be a command to compile c programs.
I know that in linux, Intel compiler is icc, and Portland is pgcc,
and GCC has gcc commands. There are probably dozens of c compilers
out there ... which one uses just a single letter c as the command?

9 Answers

Keith Thompson

8/31/2011 4:18:00 PM

"Orson Cart" <ex-privat@parts.org> writes:
> I was attempting to make an open-source package released by
> a large corporation.
> The install script fails saying there is no "c" in my path.
> When I look at the context of the "c" command in the script,
> it appears to be a command to compile c programs.
> I know that in linux, Intel compiler is icc, and Portland is pgcc,
> and GCC has gcc commands. There are probably dozens of c compilers
> out there ... which one uses just a single letter c as the command?

None that I know of. As tom says, "cc" is very common (it tends to be a
symlink to "gcc" on Linux systems).

If you didn't misread "cc" as "c, what open-source package is it?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.ne...
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Harald van D?k

8/31/2011 4:59:00 PM

On Aug 31, 4:34 pm, "Orson Cart" <ex-pri...@parts.org> wrote:
> I was attempting to make an open-source package released by
> a large corporation.
> The install script fails saying there is no "c" in my path.
> When I look at the context of the "c" command in the script,
> it appears to be a command to compile c programs.

Others have suggested that "c" might be "cc", but there is another
possibility.

If a Makefile contains a rule such as

..c.o:
$(COMPILE) -c $<

and COMPILE is not defined, then the command to be executed is just
"c", the - taken as an option to ignore any errors. And "c" probably
will not be found. In this scenario, the "c" is correct, and you
should not change it to "cc". You would instead make sure COMPILE gets
defined.

Rui Maciel

8/31/2011 5:03:00 PM

Orson Cart wrote:

> I was attempting to make an open-source package released by
> a large corporation.
> The install script fails saying there is no "c" in my path.
> When I look at the context of the "c" command in the script,
> it appears to be a command to compile c programs.
> I know that in linux, Intel compiler is icc, and Portland is pgcc,
> and GCC has gcc commands. There are probably dozens of c compilers
> out there ... which one uses just a single letter c as the command?

Try to figure out where this c command is located. If it refers to a
binary/script then you might be able to find by running the following
command:

whereis c

If you find anything then you can perform additional tests, such as using
the file command and check which software package it may belong to (in
debian-derived distros you can use the apt-file command for that)

if, instead, it's an alias then you can check the entire alias list by
running:

alias

I believe this is a good enough to give you an idea of what you are dealing
with.

Hope this helps,
Rui Maciel

Joachim Schmitz

9/1/2011 4:58:00 PM

Barry Briggs

9/2/2011 12:24:00 PM

Orson Cart wrote:

> Harald wrote:
>
>> Others have suggested that "c" might be "cc", but there is another
>> possibility.
>>
>> If a Makefile contains a rule such as
>>
>> ..c.o:
>> $(COMPILE) -c $<
>>
>> and COMPILE is not defined, then the command to be executed is just
>> "c", the - taken as an option to ignore any errors. And "c" probably
>> will not be found. In this scenario, the "c" is correct, and you
>> should not change it to "cc". You would instead make sure COMPILE
>> gets
>> defined.
>
> Ah yes, it was something like that: in the Makefile there was some
> such "$COMMAND -c filename" stuff, and the $COMMAND
> was undefined, so it looked like c instead. It is derived from
> some rather large setup scripts that take into account the hardware
> and software, but fell through the cracks in my case.

Great catch, Harald!

Orson Cart

9/2/2011 12:54:00 PM

=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_van_D=C4=B3k?= <truedfx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Others have suggested that "c" might be "cc", but there is another
>possibility.
>
>If a Makefile contains a rule such as
>
>..c.o:
> $(COMPILE) -c $<
>
>and COMPILE is not defined, then the command to be executed is just
>"c", the - taken as an option to ignore any errors. And "c" probably
>will not be found. In this scenario, the "c" is correct, and you
>should not change it to "cc". You would instead make sure COMPILE
>gets
>defined.

Ah yes, it was something like that: in the Makefile there was some
such "$COMMAND -c filename" stuff, and the $COMMAND
was undefined, so it looked like c instead. It is derived from
some rather large setup scripts that take into account the hardware
and software, but fell through the cracks in my case.

gwowen

9/2/2011 1:01:00 PM

On Aug 31, 5:59 pm, Harald van D?k <true...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If a Makefile contains a rule such as
>
> .c.o:
> $(COMPILE) -c $<
>
> and COMPILE is not defined, then the command to be executed is just
> "c", the - taken as an option to ignore any errors. And "c" probably
> will not be found. In this scenario, the "c" is correct, and you
> should not change it to "cc". You would instead make sure COMPILE gets
> defined.

*wild applause*

Rui Maciel

9/3/2011 11:32:00 AM

Harald van DÄ³k wrote:

> On Aug 31, 4:34 pm, "Orson Cart" <ex-pri...@parts.org> wrote:
>> I was attempting to make an open-source package released by
>> a large corporation.
>> The install script fails saying there is no "c" in my path.
>> When I look at the context of the "c" command in the script,
>> it appears to be a command to compile c programs.
>
> Others have suggested that "c" might be "cc", but there is another
> possibility.
>
> If a Makefile contains a rule such as
>
> .c.o:
> $(COMPILE) -c $<
>
> and COMPILE is not defined, then the command to be executed is just
> "c", the - taken as an option to ignore any errors. And "c" probably
> will not be found. In this scenario, the "c" is correct, and you
> should not change it to "cc". You would instead make sure COMPILE gets
> defined.

Nicely done, Harald. Kudos!

Rui Maciel

David Thompson

9/6/2011 5:17:00 AM

On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:58:13 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
<nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:

> Orson Cart wrote:
> > I was attempting to make an open-source package released by
> > a large corporation.
> > The install script [tries to run 'c', which turned out to be mistake....]
> > which [compiler] uses just a single letter c as the command?
>
> The non-native code C compiler in HP NonStop's Guardian personality.
>
<OT>
which was easy to mistype, especially annoying when I meant 'fc' --
which in Guardian is not 'fortran compiler' but rather 'fix command',
i.e. edit previous command line and try/do again, like uparrow in bash
(and maybe ksh? I don't remember for sure) or CMD.

But Guardian/TACL scripts, install and otherwise, are radically
different from those on any other system in the known universe.

comp.lang.c

whose c compiler has command just "c" ?

Orson Cart

Keith Thompson

Harald van D?k

Rui Maciel

Joachim Schmitz

Barry Briggs

Orson Cart

gwowen

Rui Maciel

David Thompson

x Login to ForumsZone