From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:16:40 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 149 ************************************************** Wednesday 27 February 2002 Number 149 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: nmap for OS/2 : nick" 2 Re: gcc 3.0.3 - cross-compiler? : Holger Veit 3 Re: nmap for OS/2 : Stepan Kazakov 4 Re: gcc 3.0.3 - cross-compiler? : John Poltorak 5 Re: sendmail 8-12-0 : John Poltorak 6 Fetchmail v5.9.8 : John Poltorak 7 Re: nmap for OS/2 : John Poltorak 8 RSYNC : John Poltorak 9 Re: nmap for OS/2 : nick" 10 The Single UNIX Specification - Commands & Utilities : John Poltorak 11 Splint - a better lint? : John Poltorak 12 Gnat 3.14p OS/2 binaries available : Kees de LezenneCoulander **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:07:44 +0300 (MSK) From: "nick" Subject: Re: nmap for OS/2 On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:14:29 -0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: >John Poltorak wrote: > >> > right now, one man working at new NDIS protocol driver & API similar to IPSpy, >> > but new & with many features. >> Hope it works with Token Ring as well as Ethernet... > >hmm. >ethernet / token ring / etc - must be no difference for proto driver level. >question is - does anybody using Token Ring nowdays ? ;) Wrong. protocol driver receives almost full frame from mac driver. So proto driver should be able to handle ethernet/token ring/etc specific headers (if it required, of course - for tcpip driver is it required ;), for simple driver which just routes those full frames is it not). Faithfully Yours, Nick **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:50:34 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: gcc 3.0.3 - cross-compiler? On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:50:02PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > Is the recent OS/2 port of gcc 3.0.3 a cross-compiler? It's been possible since the earliest versions of gcc to construct a cross-compiler. The ELF EMX/gcc 2.8.1 I use to produce ELF modules for XFree86-4.x is such a beast. What do you want to achieve? Holger -- Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:19:46 -0500 From: Stepan Kazakov Subject: Re: nmap for OS/2 nick wrote: > >hmm. > >ethernet / token ring / etc - must be no difference for proto driver level. > >question is - does anybody using Token Ring nowdays ? ;) > > Wrong. protocol driver receives almost full frame from mac driver. So proto driver should be able to handle > ethernet/token ring/etc specific headers (if it required, of course - for tcpip driver is it required ;), for simple driver > which just routes those full frames is it not). nickk, we was already talking about it with you :-\ my opinion - protocol|mac driver must be the simplest & linear, only providing API for other drivers & ring3 apps. -- madded. [Red Hot Chili Hackers] **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:13:44 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: gcc 3.0.3 - cross-compiler? On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 12:50:34AM +0100, Holger Veit wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:50:02PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > Is the recent OS/2 port of gcc 3.0.3 a cross-compiler? > > It's been possible since the earliest versions of gcc to construct a > cross-compiler. The ELF EMX/gcc 2.8.1 I use to produce ELF modules for > XFree86-4.x is such a beast. > > What do you want to achieve? I came across someone who was trying to run the Win32 version of gcc under Odin whose target platform was the ARM embedded processor. This sounded like an exercise in masochism, but apparently the Win32 version does support ARM as a target platform. > Holger > > -- > Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: > holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) > -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:17:01 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: sendmail 8-12-0 On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 01:59:53AM -0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: > sendmail 8-12-0 at hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/incoming/ > with openssl / smtp auth.. I got the binaries OK the other day, but the source appeared corrupt. Did anyone else get it or know where to get the original? > -- > madded. [Red Hot Chili Hackers] -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:07:43 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Fetchmail v5.9.8 There's an uptodate port of Fetchmail here:- http://zuko.mitm.ru/files/fetchmail-5.9.8-os2.zip Wonder if there is any chance of a diff file being included... -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:21:04 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: nmap for OS/2 On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:14:29PM -0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > right now, one man working at new NDIS protocol driver & API similar to IPSpy, > > > but new & with many features. > > Hope it works with Token Ring as well as Ethernet... > > hmm. > ethernet / token ring / etc - must be no difference for proto driver level. > question is - does anybody using Token Ring nowdays ? ;) Well actully, Token Ring is such a big part of many companies infrastructure especially in banking and finance that it would be a huge cost to replace it. I've always used Token Ring myself and don't have any problems with it and can't see any reason to change, at least not until ADSL is quicker than Token Ring. > > What I'd really like to see is an NDIS driver for an internal PCI ADSL > > modem which supports PPPoA. > > this is another project - mac ndis driver toolkit, for easy porting > bsd or linux netcard drivers to os2 ndis. > but this work even not started yet.. ;) > > > Is there any chance of something like this being developed? > > i think only chance to port bsd/linux/etc opensource driver to os/2. Can anyone make use of this? :- http://www.nzdsl.co.nz/software/other/PPPOA.zip > -- > madded. [Red Hot Chili Hackers] -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:35:45 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: RSYNC Has anyone used RSYNC on OS/2? There is a port by IZ here:- ftp://ftp.math.ohio-state.edu/pub/users/ilya/os2/rsync.zip but I have never managed to get it working in daemon mode. Wonder if anyone else has tried... -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:56:19 +0300 (MSK) From: "nick" Subject: Re: nmap for OS/2 On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:19:46 -0500, Stepan Kazakov wrote: >nick wrote: > >> >hmm. >> >ethernet / token ring / etc - must be no difference for proto driver level. >> >question is - does anybody using Token Ring nowdays ? ;) >> >> Wrong. protocol driver receives almost full frame from mac driver. So proto driver should be able to handle >> ethernet/token ring/etc specific headers (if it required, of course - for tcpip driver is it required ;), for simple driver >> which just routes those full frames is it not). > >nickk, we was already talking about it with you :-\ > >my opinion - protocol|mac driver must be the simplest & linear, only providing >API for other drivers & ring3 apps. I do not mean concrete implementation ;) I mean that generally proto level cares about network type. **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:59:26 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: The Single UNIX Specification - Commands & Utilities There is a list of Commands & Utilities here:- http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcuix.html which are part of 'The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2' It's nice to see that we already have most of these programs available under UnixOS/2, but I'm not really sure how authoratative this list is. Should we attempt to follow any Open Group guidelines? -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:30:31 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Splint - a better lint? If anyone uses lint, you may be interested in splint... See:- http://www.splint.org There is an OS/2 version vailable BTW. -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:29:13 -0500 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Gnat 3.14p OS/2 binaries available DWParsons at t-online.de (Dave Parsons) >I have just finished testing Gnat 3.14p and all seems to be well. Thank you very much for your effort. >If anyone would like to try it, it is now available as:- I have given the new Gnat 3.14p a good workout. I threw it all my Ada code (700 files, 14+ Mb) and it ran without a hitch at the O2 optimization level. It is the first Gnat version to have achieved this feat. All previous versions choked on some of the more difficult units and I would have to go to a lower optimization level to make them compile. I have given the resulting executables only a cursory try, but what I have seen looks good. When running under OS/2, that is. But I have run into one major stumbling block. The created executables do not run in the DOS box of either OS/2 or Windows (using rsx.exe). I get either 'process 2 get hardware fault 13 (general protection) at ..' (SIGSEGV) or 'process 2 get hardware fault 6 (invalid opcode) at ..' (SIGILL). Further investigation has shown that even the basic 'Hello world!' program shows the same problems as long as the output is created by Ada.Text_IO. When switching to GNAT.IO the 'Hello World!' program runs ok. A test program without calls to any output procedures also runs fine, but that is not very useful. I have tried various combinations of switches for rsx.exe to specify stack or heap space. One can see it makes a difference (Hello World either runs or not in a more or less random fashion). But I have not yet stumbled upon the winning combination which ensures good running in all cases. And then 'Hello World" is not exactly large compared to an operational program. When going back over previous versions of Gnat, I find that Hello World runs fine in a DOS box when compiled with Gnat 3.09 or 3.12p (the last version for which an OS/2 executable was provided by ACT). It is just 3.13p and 3.14p which give problems. I am working in an environment where I create the programs under OS/2, but all users run them under Windows. This dates back to the days when the only PC platform for Gnat was OS/2. Although Gnat for Windows NT has since become available, using OS/2 as a development platform suits me very well, thank you. Running the same executables under Windows does introduce some restrictions (no tasking for instance), but that is no problem for what I do. I have been using Gnat 3.09 since it became available five years ago. All later versions have been giving me problems of one sort or another. Although some were certainly solvable, I have so far always chosen the easy way out by staying with 3.09. Gnat 3.14p looks pretty good though and I would certainly like to make the change. Recompiling the code with Gnat for WinNT would of course solve everything and this is going to happen sooner or later, at least for formally released versions. But I would hate to lose the convenience of hopping around with executables for testing or special purposes. Does anyone have any idea of what is going on here? Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Hoofddorp, The Netherlands