topic Bad character > (octal 76) in Operating System - HP-UX

Bad character > (octal 76)

rajeshmsr — Tue, 03 May 2011 08:42:42 GMT

During Sun Solaris to HP Unix migraiton, when i build using Makefile (attached), I got the following error.
Bad character > (octal 76), line 48Make: . Stop.

Kindly suggest a solution.

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

Steven Schweda — Tue, 03 May 2011 15:27:51 GMT

> [...] Sun Solaris [...]

uname -a

> [...] HP Unix [...]

uname -a

> [...] Makefile (attached) [...]

grep '^include' Makefile

You didn't provide a test case which anyone
else could run.

Have you tried using GNU "make"?

http://www.gnu.org/software/make/

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

Dennis Handly — Wed, 04 May 2011 02:02:48 GMT

There is nothing obvious on line 48 that has a ">". But it seems that ">" comes from line 46:
LIBS:sh = find . -type d ! $ -name . -o -name .. $ -print 2>/dev/null | grep -v "^\.$" | cut -d '/' -f 2 | grep -v "^libind$" | sort -u

This syntax isn't recognized.

As Steve suggests, you need to use gmake.

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

rajeshmsr — Wed, 04 May 2011 04:06:36 GMT

Thanks Steven/Dennis for pointing out the error.

Unfortunately, it seems that we cant use gmake.

Is it possible to do this without gmake?

Note:We are using the make of the "C compilation system".

Thanks.

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

Steven Schweda — Wed, 04 May 2011 05:31:05 GMT

> Is it possible to do this without gmake?

Sure. Just rearrange your whole build system
to move those commands out of the "make" file
and into shell scripts.

> Unfortunately, it seems that we cant use
> gmake.

Why not? Too easy? (Ask the person who made
that decision if _he_ would like to do the
work.)

> Note:We are using the make of the "C
> compilation system".

You may think that that conveys some useful
information, but it doesn't.

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

Dennis Handly — Wed, 04 May 2011 08:08:02 GMT

>it seems that we can't use gmake.

Then your port just got lots harder. :-(

>We are using the make of the "C compilation system".

Did you mean the primitive HP-UX make(1)?

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

rajeshmsr — Wed, 04 May 2011 08:11:46 GMT

>Did you mean the primitive HP-UX make(1)?

Yes. I assume the one at /usr/ccs/bin is the primitive HP-UX make that you are referring.

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

James R. Ferguson — Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:22 GMT

HI:

Yes, as already noted, the HP-UX provided 'make' is a rudimentary one compare to the GNU 'gmake'. Hence, either use 'gmake' or re-make [ no pun intended ] the makefile to accommodate the less robust HP-UX 'make'.

> Unfortunately, it seems that we cant use gmake.

That would seem to be a capricious management decision. If that's correct, ask what "they" want you to spend your time doing to get around the problem.

Regards!

...JRF...

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

rajeshmsr — Fri, 06 May 2011 06:01:25 GMT

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

Dennis Handly — Fri, 06 May 2011 08:29:37 GMT

A better solution would be to use the real shell's $() vs ``:
LIBS = $$(find . -type d ! $ -name . -o -name .. $ -print 2> /dev/null | grep -v "^\.$" | cut -d '/' -f 2 | grep -v "^libind$" | sort -u)

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

rajeshmsr — Fri, 06 May 2011 10:27:20 GMT

Thanks Dennis.

Could you please let me know the advantages of using $ over ``.

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

Dennis Handly — Fri, 06 May 2011 11:05:18 GMT

>Could you please let me know the advantages of using $ over ``.

ksh(1) & sh-posix(1) say: In the second (archaic) form

Using $() allows you to nest commands.

Re: Bad character > (octal 76)

James R. Ferguson — Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:00 GMT

Hi (again):

> >Could you please let me know the advantages of using $ over ``.

And the Posix $(...) form is vastly more readable than the archaic back-tick syntax. Single quotes ("'") and back-ticks ("`") can blur a bit if you are quickly, visually scanning.

Regards!

...JRF...