From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 04:16:28 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 145 ************************************************** Saturday 23 February 2002 Number 145 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: cpp0.exe error msg : John Poltorak 2 Re: Migrating from gcc 2.8.1 to 3.0.3 : Michel SUCH" 3 Re: gcc 3.0.3. _optlink questions for Andy : Holger Veit 4 Re: cpp0.exe error msg : John Poltorak 5 Make 3.79.1 & INTL.DLL : John Poltorak 6 Re: gcc 3.0.3. _optlink questions for Andy : Henry Sobotka 7 EMX LIBS : John Poltorak 8 Re: Make 3.79.1 & INTL.DLL : Andreas Buening 9 Re: make 3.79.1 : John Poltorak 10 Building BINUTILS : John Poltorak 11 [Fwd: UnixOS2.org announce TEST] : T.Sikora" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:02:40 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: cpp0.exe error msg On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 11:07:08AM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > Can someone translate this error msg? :- > > > > There's nothing wrong with malloc.c nor cpp0.exe, but your gcc3 > installation is somehow messed up. Doublecheck the instructions to make > sure you didn't miss anything. I've checked and doublechecked... I must have tried installing gcc 2.8.1 followed by 3.0.3 half a dozen times, but I'm either missing something completely or misinterpreting something. Is there any way to pinpoint the error? > h~ -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:08:08 +0100 (CET) From: "Michel SUCH" Subject: Re: Migrating from gcc 2.8.1 to 3.0.3 On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:36:23 -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: >Michel SUCH wrote: >> >> For those using GCC 3.03, note that the -funroll_loops option is broken >> (just experienced it with lame). > >Do you mean -funroll-loops? Is the underscore instead of hyphen just a >typo in your message? > Sorry, yes it is. >h~ > > ---------------------------- Michel SUCH TEAM OS/2 FRANCE ICQ # 51654489 **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 01:15:03 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: gcc 3.0.3. _optlink questions for Andy On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 04:56:56PM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > ...which I'm posting here for the benefit of anyone else interested in > these issues. > > Simple tests indicate that gcc's _optlink is compatible with VAC++'s > _Optlink both ways: I was able to create an _optlink DLL with gcc and > use it with an icc-built program, as well as run a gcc-built program > with a VAC++ version of glib.dll. This sounds good. EM had reported long ago that the old 2.8.1 already had some sort of Optlink calling convention, but mentioned it would work for scalar types only. So, does the new optlink also work for the not so "simple cases" like float/double arguments (mixed with integer args), structure passing and returns, and pointers to obscure data types (like function pointers)? > Is there any particular reason for the case difference between _optlink > and _Optlink? > > How feasible would it be to add a -moptlink flag to make that calling > convention the default? > > I noticed that _optlink only kicks in with optimization. Without -O or > higher, args are moved from the registers to the stack instead of used > in situ. Is this a bug or just an unfortunate necessity due to gcc > internals and implementation details or...? gcc generally produces really bad code if there is no -O specified. Holger -- Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:03:51 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: cpp0.exe error msg On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:51:19PM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > Is there any way to pinpoint the error? > > Can't think of a method offhand. But you might make sure that Andy's > gettext is being used instead of some other variant (I have no idea > if/how cpp0 uses it, just a possible source of strangeness that comes to > mind). I am using a different version of INTL, so that may well be causing some problems... I guess it could due to some mismatched DLL's in the mix... BTW I've just noticed that Make 3.79.1 will not work with Andy's INTL, which doesn't seem to have an nl_msg_cat_cntr funtion. If I do use Andy's INTL while running Perl's configure, I get a number of SYS2070 errors, so it looks as though my GNU Utils or some such may be incompatible with gcc 3.0.3 in some way. > Also, I gather you've run make in emx/lib and > emx/lib/gcc-lib/.../3.0.3 after unpacking? Yup. > > h~ -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:27:50 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Make 3.79.1 & INTL.DLL I have found that Make v3.79.1 and the INTL.DLL provided by AZ in GETTEXT don't get along. Can anyone confirm this? -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:03:01 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc 3.0.3. _optlink questions for Andy Holger Veit wrote: > > does the new optlink also work for [...] > structure passing and returns No. Tested with a function that takes a struct as an arg and returns a struct. With an EMX DLL, the icc program crashes with a sys1808; with a VAC++ DLL and gcc caller, no crash but two of three struct members end up holding garbage values. With _Optlink the address of the return struct should be pushed on the stack by the caller just before the call as a "hidden parameter"; I don't see this happening with _optlink, and the out-of-phase stack between what the caller sets up and the callee expects may well account for the failures. In pure form both builds work fine, but with gcc that's kind of meaningless since it's not quite _Optlink. > function pointers? Yes. A little calculator library with a function pointer for operations works nicely both ways, i.e. as an EMX DLL with an icc program and as a VAC++ DLL with a gcc program. h~ **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:29:05 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: EMX LIBS Should I be able to make all the libs which come with EMX by running MAKE.CMD in \emx\src\lib ? If so, what paramaters are required here? :- (dmake %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 2>&1) | tee out -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:27:00 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Make 3.79.1 & INTL.DLL John Poltorak wrote: > > I have found that Make v3.79.1 and the INTL.DLL provided by AZ in GETTEXT > don't get along. > > Can anyone confirm this? Yes, look at the "make 3.19.1" (lower case "m") thread a few days ago. First I thought this would be because AZ mightn't have used "emxexp -u" but now I'm not sure. gawk 3.1.33 has just moved to gettext 0.11 which contains his patches and now it does not compile any more. There's something broken within the new gettext. bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:09:21 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: make 3.79.1 On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 11:12:59PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > > > > > ftp://ftp.unixos2.com/incoming/make-3_79_1-bin-beta1.zip > > > > Tried make 3.79.1 with my application. It failed to find > > _nl_msg_cat_cntr in my runtime intl.dll (the most recent > > versions of intl.dll no longer have that entry point). > > Even the most recent gettext 0.11 uses that variable. > > > > The documentation says that I should be using gettext 0.10.39 > > -- the 0.10.39 package which I downloaded happened __not__ to > > include an intl.dll (so presumably the 09 OCT 2001 version of > > intl.dll is what is supposed to be used with the new make). > > This refers to gettext-0_10_39-r2-bin.zip on hobbes. That's the > latest version I've uploaded and I still use but in principle you > can use any newer (and most likely also older) version if you want. > > > > My point is that there have been TWO distributions since > > gettext 0.10.39, both of which provide more recent intl.dll > > files. I'm surprised that this new make version depends > > upon a back-level gettext package. > > No, it doesn't. Where exactly did you get your intl.dll? > Which version is it? And what error message do you get? Try this:- ftp://ftp.netlabs.org/pub/gcc/gettext-os2-0.10.40-bin.zip There function mentioned above is missing. > bye, > Andreas > > -- > One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, > One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them > In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie. -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:34:54 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Building BINUTILS What do I need to do to build BINUTILS? I'd like to think it would be as simple as grabbing these files:- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/binutils/binutils-2.11.2.tar.gz ftp://ftp.netlabs.org/pub/gcc/binutils-os2-2.11.2-diff.zip then unarchiving them, running PATCH and then Make... but I guess there is more to it than that... -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:02:34 -0500 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: [Fwd: UnixOS2.org announce TEST] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------616A7B41418FE89AD2992A99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Ted Sikora tsikora at unixos2.com http://unixos2.com --------------616A7B41418FE89AD2992A99 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from ntplx.net (dhcp-209-54-72-110.ct.dsl.ntplx.com [209.54.72.110]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.11.6/8.11.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id g1P3uWQ27656 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:56:34 -0500 (EST) Sender: root at ntplx.net Message-ID: <3C79B618.19D14451 at ntplx.net> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:57:12 -0500 From: "T.Sikora" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: announce at unixos2.com Subject: UnixOS2.org announce TEST Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Please email me admin at unixos2.com if you recieve this. I'm testing some changes. I set up a new server at http://209.54.72.110 It will become the main one soon. I really need some feedback on what you would like to see on UnixOS2.org or not. If anyone's interested in contributing a section ie; docs , links, porting faqs, etc. grab a template http://209.54.72.110/template.php email me and/or go to work. Mateusz Latusek wanted to put his XFree86 site at UnixOS2.org I have no objections. Unfortunately he lost his ISP service already and I cannot contact him. If anyone can could you please forward this email to him. A new ux2_base a few days ago pretty slow otherwise. You can check the changelog here: ftp://unixos2.com/pub/unixos2/unixos2-current/Changelog.txt -- Ted Sikora tsikora at unixos2.com http://unixos2.com --------------616A7B41418FE89AD2992A99--