From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 04:14:17 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 124 ************************************************** Saturday 02 February 2002 Number 124 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: New TCP43 and HOB X11 : Jack Troughton 2 Re: New TCP43 and HOB X11 : John Poltorak 3 Re: GLIBC : Henry Sobotka 4 Re: GLIBC : csaba.raduly at sophos.com 5 Re: GLIBC : Holger Veit 6 Re: GLIBC : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 10:24:21 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: New TCP43 and HOB X11 John Poltorak wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Tim Erickson wrote: > > I am happy to report a much improved performance when running local apps with the > > new TCP43 from SWC. > > Is this the same one that is part of MCP2? No, it's an update to that version. Regards, Jack **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:19:59 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: New TCP43 and HOB X11 On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Tim Erickson wrote: > I am happy to report a much improved performance when running local apps with the > new TCP43 from SWC. Is this the same one that is part of MCP2? > Tim > -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:42:32 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: GLIBC John Poltorak wrote: > > Actually I was only suggesting GLIBC as the name of the package which > would contain the headers and libraries for GCC. But that could mislead people into thinking it was a port of glibc, and to have a package named "glibc" with a note saying "This is not glibc" would only make matters worse. Preferably name it after what it really contains. h~ **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 19:28:23 +0000 From: csaba.raduly at sophos.com Subject: Re: GLIBC On 03/02/2002 19:13:47 Holger Veit wrote: > >[1] The source code is the only documentation[2] >[2] glibc seems to have failed the IOCCC[3] contest some years ago, > because noone managed to understand the code. Isn't that a bonus in the IOCCC ? :-) >[3] International obfuscated C coding contest > -- Csaba Ráduly, Software Engineer Sophos Anti-Virus email: csaba.raduly at sophos.com http://www.sophos.com US Support: +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support: +44 1235 559933 **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:13:47 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: GLIBC On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 01:14:41PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > I've been looking at the SlackWare GLIBC package and this looks to > contain most of the headers found under /usr/include. > > What I'd like to do is create a GLIBC package for UnixOS/2 using all the > headers and libraries from emx/gcc. Over time this package would be built > up to include as many headers and libraries as possible which were the > equivalents of those found on Linux. > > Any comments?... To port glibc is an enterprise as complex as writing libemu[1]. You cannot seriously mix EMX and glibc headers and expect something to work. Holger [1] The source code is the only documentation[2] [2] glibc seems to have failed the IOCCC[3] contest some years ago, because noone managed to understand the code. [3] International obfuscated C coding contest -- Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:33:09 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: GLIBC On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:13:47PM +0100, Holger Veit wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 01:14:41PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > I've been looking at the SlackWare GLIBC package and this looks to > > contain most of the headers found under /usr/include. > > > > What I'd like to do is create a GLIBC package for UnixOS/2 using all the > > headers and libraries from emx/gcc. Over time this package would be built > > up to include as many headers and libraries as possible which were the > > equivalents of those found on Linux. > > > > Any comments?... > > To port glibc is an enterprise as complex as writing libemu[1]. You cannot > seriously mix EMX and glibc headers and expect something to work. Actually I was only suggesting GLIBC as the name of the package which would contain the headers and libraries for GCC. I'm sure the porting of GLIBC would be a massive task. I'm trying to make UnixOS/2 packages roughly equivalent to those in SlackWare rather than inventing new packages and I don't see where such headers and libraries would fit in otherwise. > Holger > > [1] The source code is the only documentation[2] > [2] glibc seems to have failed the IOCCC[3] contest some years ago, > because noone managed to understand the code. > [3] International obfuscated C coding contest > > -- > Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: > holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) > -- John