Can't build module in DDE27

It’s first thing in the morning here so I might be missing something obvious, but…

I’ve just upgraded my DDE from 25 to 27 and when I try to build an existing module (by running Mk) I get “AMU: failed to read time stamp for ‘o.’”

This error occurs both with my own code and with the “CModule” example. Manually creating the “o” directory does not help. The error did not occur with DDE 25.

Does anyone know what I’ve missed?

My work around is to retrieve the CModule Makefile from DDE25, add it into DDE27 but called CModule25 and amend CModule.Makefile’s include to CModule25.

The same query cropped up with DDE26.

The same query cropped up with DDE26.

Ooops. Bug that needs fixing…

Sounds like it needed fixing in DDE26 and got missed. DDE27b anyone?

“AMU: failed to read time stamp for ‘o.’”
Does anyone know what I’ve missed?

Change the line

RES_OBJ =

CUSTOMRES = no

If that helps, at least 1 person in this thread should report it to ROOL otherwise it’ll probably still be there when DDE28 comes out! I believe the skeleton examples are the gold reference now, so perhaps nobody checked CModule after I made this change some time ago.

Thanks; that fix did indeed work. I’ve emailed ROOL.

Another problem: I can’t get a debug build to work. Once again, same issue with both my own previously-working projects and with the example.

AMU: Don't know how to make 'C:DDTLib.o.DDTLib'

DDE25 had DDTLib in AcornC/C++.Export.APCS-32.Lib.DDTLib, but it doesn’t seem to exist in the DDE27 installation at all!

DDE25 had DDTLib in AcornC/C++.Export.APCS-32.Lib.DDTLib, but it doesn’t seem to exist in the DDE27 installation at all!

It was not in DDE26 either.

Present in DDE25 but missing in both DDE26 and DDE27

AcornC/C++.Export.APCS-32.Lib

DDTLib
DebugLib
ModMalloc
Trace
Unicode
Wild

These are present in the downloaded ROOL build environment. Once set a Debug example builds.

I’ve sent another email to ROOL to hopefully find out what the official word is. It seems very strange to remove the library yet still provide shared makefiles that use it!

I’ve heard back from ROOL; DDTLib (among others) is indeed still supposed to be included. The missing files are available from here.

Edit: The current AppLibs makefile also calls for PDebug and remotedb, which are not included in the zip above. I’ve built them myself and put them here in the meantime.

Update 29 Jan: PDebug and remotedb are now included in ROOL’s DDE27Libs archive so I’ve removed otherlibs.zip from my server. With that said, ROOL advised that it’s probably better to remove the references from the AppLibs makefile.

Found another one.

The DDE27 AppLibs and ModuleLibs makefiles both expect SyncLib to be in C:SyncLib.o but there’s nothing there. Fortunately it’s in CVS so I can presumably build my own easily enough.

Does anyone know whether this has been fixed in DDE28 (either SyncLib supplied, or removed from the makefiles)?

Does anyone know whether this has been fixed in DDE28 (either SyncLib supplied, or removed from the makefiles)?

Neither, it’s not expected be supplied as it doesn’t even appear in the CTools components. Presumably none of the examples in the DDE require it?

If you check the AppLibs and ModuleLibs makefile fragments you’ll find there’s dozens of libraries not supplied. That’s because they’re just verbatim copies of the main OS build ones, and that’s OK because defining the variable is harmless. Removing them just for the DDE seems excessive, and highly prone to them being out of sync with the master copy.

Hopefully when you want library that’s not used in the examples, then either you’re advanced enough to build it yourself, or are writing a new example for future inclusion with the DDE (in an SMP world, some clear examples of using SyncLib wouldn’t go amiss).

If you check the AppLibs and ModuleLibs makefile fragments you’ll find there’s dozens of libraries not supplied.

I suppose I should’ve actually looked at the file before posting :)

This was a case of “I should use SyncLib, I’ll just do a search in the DDE and see whether it’s in there” and search returned the two makefiles but nothing else. I didn’t think to actually investigate further!

As you say, building it myself shouldn’t be too difficult. Thanks for replying.