From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 04:32:11 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 272 ************************************************** Saturday 13 July 2002 Number 272 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : Maynard" 2 Re: Testing BYACC : Thomas Dickey 3 Re: cc : Thomas Dickey 4 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : Maynard" 5 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : Jeff Robinson 6 Re: How to echo a blank line? : email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) 7 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : lordspigol" 8 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : John Poltorak 9 Testing BYACC : John Poltorak 10 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : lordspigol" 11 cc : John Poltorak 12 Re: Testing BYACC : Thomas Dickey 13 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : Maynard" 14 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : John Poltorak 15 beyond the baseline : Maynard" 16 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : John Poltorak 17 Re: Testing BYACC : John Poltorak 18 How to echo a blank line? : John Poltorak 19 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : csaba.raduly at sophos.com 20 Re: cc : John Poltorak 21 Re: cc : csaba.raduly at sophos.com 22 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : Maynard" 23 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : lordspigol" 24 Re: How to echo a blank line? : lordspigol" 25 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : John Poltorak 26 Re: cc : tsikora at ntplx.net 27 Re: How to echo a blank line? : email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) 28 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : John Poltorak 29 Re: How to echo a blank line? : Yuri Prokushev" 30 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : Michael Taylor 31 Re: Baseline toolset RC1 : Michael Taylor **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 07:44:57 -0500 (CDT) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 My baseline (nor my OS/2) does not include link386 during 'Configure' in build_perl.sh: .... Use which C compiler? [gcc] SYS1041: The name link386 is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file. Uh-oh, the C compiler 'gcc' doesn't seem to be working. You need to find a working C compiler. Either (purchase and) install the C compiler supplied by your OS vendor, or for a free C compiler try http://gcc.gnu.org/ I cannot continue any further, aborting. # gcc -v Using builtin specs. gcc version 2.8.1 # **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:25:04 -0400 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: Testing BYACC On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:13:49AM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > The BYACC archive includes a test directory, but the included Makefile has > no 'test' target. > > What is the point of the test directory? If it is there for testing BYACC, > how do I use it? My impression (the files are from the earliest versions of byacc) is that they're there for reference - to see if byacc produces the same output for the given input. There's no script... -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:32:25 -0400 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: cc On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 12:50:57PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > I'm thinking of including cc.exe as a copy of gcc.exe in a standard > UnixOS/2 distro. I tried to use cc.cmd which consisted of:- > > gcc %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 > > but it wouldn't work. quoting can be a problem... to work-around, it's useful to have a small executable that does an execvp with the renamed argv[0], e.g., something like #include #include int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { argv[0] = "gcc"; return execvp(argv[0], argv) ? EXIT_FAILURE : EXIT_SUCCESS; } -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:34:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 John, >I assumed it was part of a standard OS/2 installation... Looks like Iwas >wrong about that, but is part of the OS/2 distribution. It must be optional; but I found it. Thanks for the lead. >I guess I need to add some initial tests to make sure that any >pre-requisites are installed. When I've been building this, I've carefully avoided using my normal %path% and only used \os2 I'll see if I can discover what is required of that, since I'm not done here ;-} Soon, `~Maynard **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:14:35 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 lordspigol wrote: > My OS2 dont had the LINK, but the CD have. > > However I dont have the option to install it by default or choose it. > > Now I have the LINK386 installed. In the Warp 4.51 MCP it is disk 20. > > \os2image\disk_20\LINK > > Rod > During Selective Install you can get LINK386 by putting a check beside "Optional System Utilities" and from the "More..." button choose "Link Object Modules". That should install it for you. Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:40:37 -0500 From: email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) Subject: Re: How to echo a blank line? In: <20020714155545.K60165 at eyup.org> On: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:55:45 +0100 Screaming: How to echo a blank line? John Poltorak did rant: +I'm trying to create a file from a batch file using a sequence of echo +commands, but am having problems creating a blank line. +If I run:- +echo first >>foo +echo >>foo +echo last >>foo +foo contains:- +first +ECHO is on. +last +How do I get a blank line in the middle? Try this echo This line is not blank. The next is. >>oof echo: >>oof echo Note the colon : on the end of the echo. >>oof Gene -- +=========================-=>Unix & OS/2<=-=========================+ # Owner and C.E.O. - ERA Computer Consulting - Jackson, TN USA # # eCS,OS/2,UnixWare,OpenServer & Linux Business Computing Solutions # # Please visit our www pages at http://eracc.hypermart.net/ # +===================================================================+ We run IBM OS/2 v.4.00, Revision 9.036 Sysinfo: 43 Processes, 163 Threads, uptime is 1d 13h 29m 49s 58ms **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:43:14 -0300 (ADT) From: "lordspigol" Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 I dont have link386 here also. Is link386 needed to compile something of UnixOS2? Rod On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 07:44:57 -0500 (CDT), Maynard wrote: >My baseline (nor my OS/2) does not include link386 **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:07:19 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 03:34:37PM -0500, Maynard wrote: > OK John, > > I used the following three lines at the top of each of three .cmd files > > set repository=\213.152.37.92\pub\unixos2\baseline\archives > set path=\usr\bin;n:\os2 > set beginlibpath=\usr\lib > > I put the contents of your baseline\ into my root \ and ran the scripts > from there. > > I had to modify build_perl.sh by removing the leading slash before > $repository Yes, that's because you have an absolute path in %repository%, above. > While logging emx_inst.cmd I note that \emx\include\long.cmd does not > 'exit' or 'return' to the parent logging. Did you create an install log when running baseline_inst? Can you compare it against my INSTALL3.LOG? > The perl build seems to be OK until this point in the log: > Use which C compiler? [gcc] > > Configure: ./checkcc[55]: gcc: not found > > Uh-oh, the C compiler 'gcc' doesn't seem to be working. > > You need to find a working C compiler. Can you check whether gcc can find its DLLs (emx.dll etc) on the libpath or via beginlibpath? When did you get build_perl.cmd? I changed it a few days ago to include OS2_SHELL which Perl seems to require when being built. > [X:\]path > PATH=x:\usr\bin;x:\emx\bin;n\os2; > > [X:\]dir \emx\bin\gcc.exe > 12-21-98 1:55a 110596 0 gcc.exe > > I'll keep playing with it. I ought to be able to run build_perl.cmd by > itself now. Yes, I think you should be able to run build_perl.cmd as a standalone program as long as you define %repository%. Can you run dirlist.cmd and compare the result with toolset.dir? Try running this:- dirlist >tmplist && diff -y --suppress-common-lines tmplist toolset.dir > `~Maynard -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:13:49 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Testing BYACC The BYACC archive includes a test directory, but the included Makefile has no 'test' target. What is the point of the test directory? If it is there for testing BYACC, how do I use it? -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:32:42 -0300 (ADT) From: "lordspigol" Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 My OS2 dont had the LINK, but the CD have. However I dont have the option to install it by default or choose it. Now I have the LINK386 installed. In the Warp 4.51 MCP it is disk 20. \os2image\disk_20\LINK Rod On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:35:44 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Hmm... I always have link386.exe in \os2. It must be an installation >option which I always choose. In Warp 4 it is part of the LINK bundle on >DISK_35. You can install directly from the CD using:- > >unpack X:\os2image\disk_35\LINK c: > >I guess it's also available through Selective Install, but not sure where. **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 12:50:57 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: cc I'm thinking of including cc.exe as a copy of gcc.exe in a standard UnixOS/2 distro. I tried to use cc.cmd which consisted of:- gcc %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 but it wouldn't work. Has anyone got any comments about adding cc.exe? -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 12:58:58 -0400 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: Testing BYACC On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 03:18:34PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:25:04AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:13:49AM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > The BYACC archive includes a test directory, but the included Makefile has > > > no 'test' target. > > > > > > What is the point of the test directory? If it is there for testing BYACC, > > > how do I use it? > > > > My impression (the files are from the earliest versions of byacc) is that > > they're there for reference - to see if byacc produces the same output for > > the given input. There's no script... > > I guess it pre-supposes so knowledge of byacc on the part of the user, > which I don't have... > > I see a couple of *.output files which must the results. How do I go about > trying to reproduce them? you have to move the reference files someplace where they won't be overwritten, and then run byacc -d -v -b error byacc -d -v -b ftp -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:46:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 Failed 11 test scripts out of 258, 95.74% okay. u=134.84 s=0 cu=0 cs=0 scripts=258 tests=12599 make: *** [test] Error 1 I didn't need any OS/2, other than the linker, in the PATH until Configure in the perl building script; adding /os2 to the PATH enabled Configure to complete successfully. I did make changes to the installation scripts which I'll send to John directly, and based upon the following file directory structure which I put to the list for discussion. What I opted to do, and propose as a standard here, is X:\bin X:\emx X:\etc X:\home X:\logs X:\os2bin is where I unpacked LINK from the OS/2 CD X:\tmp X:\UnixOS2 X:\usr X:\UnixOS2\ here is the base for ftp://unixos2 at 213.152.37.92/pub/unixos2/ I do all file retrieval and baseline construction from here; and I've made modifications to John's original scripts to accomodate this. I just had to fix source and destination paths somewhere in order to be organized. Any final distribution of this project wouldn't have to do that of course; but reducing the number of user modifications or variables will be a big help I believe. Accordingly, I note that the drive for (X: above) need not be specified until the build-perl .cmd file probably only for the various paths used by Configure in the .sh file. The build-perl .cmd file is also the one which requires edit for drive; and this is the only file to be edited by other users. From here[\UnixOS2\], to rebuild or refresh the entire baseline toolset (and any other packages) , the steps are: my_file: get_baseline.cmd: rem *** first get the neccessary command files and lists from UnixOS2 *** wget -Nc -P baseline -t 1 ftp://unixos2 at 213.152.37.92/pub/unixos2/baseline/* rem *** then get all the files on the lists *** rem ** these two lines are from baseline/gather.cmd wget -Nc -t 1 -P baseline\archives -i baseline\toolset.lst wget -Nc -t 1 -P baseline\emx -i baseline\emx.lst rem *** next job is to run sequentially: baseline_inst, emx-inst, build_perl my_file: install_baseline.cmd: taken from baseline/baseline_inst.cmd not included in this message other than important snippets: set path=\usr\bin set repository=\UnixOS2\baseline\archives --added conditional to reduce log clutter: if not exist \bin md \bin --added -u switch and / prefix to destination: %repository%\uzs550x2.exe -uo unzip.exe -d /usr/bin unzip -uo -j %repository%\zcr23x2.zip zip.exe -d /usr/bin my_file: base_emx.cmd: (snippets only) rem taken from baseline/emx-inst.cmd set path=\bin;\usr\bin;\emx\binų set beginlibpath=\usr\libų set repository=\UnixOS2\baseline\archivesų -- added -u and made destinations absolute: unzip -uo %repository%\emxfix04.zip emx/bin/* emx/include/* emx/lib/* -d \ų unzip -uo -j %repository%\emxfix04.zip emx/dll/* -d /usr/libų cd \emx\include my_file: base_perl.cmd rem taken from baseline/build_perl.cmd without significant modification. !! This is the place where users must point to their and drives !! set rt=x:ų set osrt=n: set repository=%rt%\UnixOS2\baseline\archives my_file: base_perl.sh taken from baseline/build_perl.sh only one modification: FROM: tar zxf /$REPOSITORY/stable.tar.gz TO: tar zxf $REPOSITORY/stable.tar.gz for consistency with other uses of $repository Now I'll go see what happened with those 11 failed tests. Good work, John! `~Maynard **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:35:44 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 07:44:57AM -0500, Maynard wrote: > My baseline (nor my OS/2) does not include link386 Hmm... I always have link386.exe in \os2. It must be an installation option which I always choose. In Warp 4 it is part of the LINK bundle on DISK_35. You can install directly from the CD using:- unpack X:\os2image\disk_35\LINK c: I guess it's also available through Selective Install, but not sure where. -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:55:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "Maynard" Subject: beyond the baseline On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:02:10 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >This confused me initially, as I couldn't see why it should be so >different from yours, but it turns out I had set my variables to a >my normal build environment rather than the baseline tool set, so it looks >as though there is some scope for improvement. I'm in a stump here which seems relevant. I must not have some environment set up correctly; together with not knowing what I'm doing. [X:\unixos2]sh # b.sh SYS0191: X:\unixos2\b.sh cannot be run in an OS/2 session. Perhaps there should be a .profile or .bashrc or something which creates the necessary environment variables, paths etc. Maybe I'm just not properly fed or focused any more. `~Maynard **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:03:24 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 10:43:14AM -0300, lordspigol wrote: > I dont have link386 here also. I assumed it was part of a standard OS/2 installation... Looks like Iwas wrong about that, but is part of the OS/2 distribution. I guess I need to add some initial tests to make sure that any pre-requisites are installed. > Is link386 needed to compile something of UnixOS2? That depends on which LINK options you are using. Some will require it, others won't. > Rod > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 07:44:57 -0500 (CDT), Maynard wrote: > > >My baseline (nor my OS/2) does not include link386 -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:18:34 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Testing BYACC On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:25:04AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:13:49AM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > The BYACC archive includes a test directory, but the included Makefile has > > no 'test' target. > > > > What is the point of the test directory? If it is there for testing BYACC, > > how do I use it? > > My impression (the files are from the earliest versions of byacc) is that > they're there for reference - to see if byacc produces the same output for > the given input. There's no script... I guess it pre-supposes so knowledge of byacc on the part of the user, which I don't have... I see a couple of *.output files which must the results. How do I go about trying to reproduce them? > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:55:45 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: How to echo a blank line? I'm trying to create a file from a batch file using a sequence of echo commands, but am having problems creating a blank line. If I run:- echo first >>foo echo >>foo echo last >>foo foo contains:- first ECHO is on. last How do I get a blank line in the middle? -- John **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:01:54 +0100 From: csaba.raduly at sophos.com Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 On 14/07/2002 10:43:14 owner-os2-unix wrote: >I dont have link386 here also. > >Is link386 needed to compile something of UnixOS2? > It is definitely needed to compile Perl. -- 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 20 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:05:57 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: cc On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:32:25AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 12:50:57PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > quoting can be a problem... > > to work-around, it's useful to have a small executable that does an > execvp with the renamed argv[0], e.g., something like > > #include > #include > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > argv[0] = "gcc"; > return execvp(argv[0], argv) ? EXIT_FAILURE : EXIT_SUCCESS; > } Thanks for that. I'm going to try incorporating this into my install script using something like this:- at echo off echo #include ^>>cc.c echo #include ^>>cc.c echo int main(int argc, char *argv[])>>cc.c echo {>>cc.c echo argv[0] = "gcc";>>cc.c echo return execvp(argv[0], argv) ? EXIT_FAILURE : EXIT_SUCCESS;>>cc.c echo }>>cc.c gcc -o cc.exe cc.c Does that seem OK? This creates a 17kB cc.exe. Is there a simple way to reduce this as part of the above script? > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:44:07 +0100 From: csaba.raduly at sophos.com Subject: Re: cc On 14/07/2002 12:50:57 owner-os2-unix wrote: >I'm thinking of including cc.exe as a copy of gcc.exe in a standard >UnixOS/2 distro. I tried to use cc.cmd which consisted of:- > >gcc %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 > >but it wouldn't work. Configure scripts are usually shell scripts and they may or may not be able to launch cmd.exe with cc.cmd when asked to run 'cc'. Indeed, they may not be able to launch cc.exe either. You might have better luck with a shell script called 'cc' (no extension) which would pass the required parameters to gcc. Thomas Dickey already gave a small example program to be called cc.exe. Compiled with -Zomf -Zsys might make it even smaller. > >Has anyone got any comments about adding cc.exe? > Providing cc.exe might encourage complacency. Programs (distributed in surce) should be able to build without an executable called 'cc' Note that GNU make can be compiled with a GCC_IS_NATIVE preprocessor define, which would change a number of predefined variables: $(CC) would be defined as 'gcc' instead of 'cc' $(CXX) would be defined as 'gcc' instead of 'g++' $(LEX) would be 'flex' instead of 'lex' $(YACC) would be 'bison' I think for OS/2, gcc _is_ native, as there isn't a system default compiler like in Unix. Unfortunately, most makefiles don't use the builtin rules. -- 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 22 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:50:40 -0500 (CDT) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:27:23 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >I'd like to amend this to make it as Unix-like as possible. I'm all for that. >In due course, I would like to see the emx directory eliminated, although >I think we should keep it for the time being. However I would like to move >lib and include to \usr. Yep; though I'm thinking that \emx is probably a keeper, given the particular way it fits into the whole scenario. >I'd prefer to move logs to somewhere like \var\log. I had darn near done that already. >> X:\os2bin is where I unpacked LINK from the OS/2 CD > >I don't see any need for this. The normal place for LINK386 is under \os2 >which does not need to be under X:. You're right of course. This was a temporary measure for me to find out just which os2 native files were required; and I never did find out. >> X:\UnixOS2 > >Not sure about this at all. If there is a UnixOS2, I don't think it should >be off root, but I don't know where it ought to be. Part of my thinking in keeping it separate was to enable full demolition and recreation of the target nix structure. Furthermore, \UnixOS2\ looks like a fine candidate to reside on CD. I should probably improve my understanding of your ultimate desire however. What I'm seeing at this time is: - a set of compiled binaries to be used in the OS/2 path -- minimum set required for assembling the development environment [/bin or /sbin] -- additional set of user compiled tools [/usr/bin] - a unix-like environment - a development environment for GNU util ports to OS/2 When I ponder on this I note that there are important distinctions between an OS/2 system and a unix/linux system which will require confrontation; most obviously the single user nature of os/2, and the inability to use symbolic links. Due to the single user nature, separation of /bin and /sbin is irrelevant; however a separation of directories for those compiled tools which the os/2 shell should have in the path (grep), from those which are of no use to a command.com shell (*.sh), would be reasonable. Unix reasonings for replacing /var with /usr/var do not apply in the os/2 environment that I can see, since our system partition is completely somewhere else. Etc. -- Maynard **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:35:33 -0300 (ADT) From: "lordspigol" Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 Excellent advice. Thanks! Rod On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:14:35 -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: >During Selective Install you can get LINK386 by putting a check beside >"Optional System Utilities" and from the "More..." button choose "Link >Object Modules". That should install it for you. **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:39:54 -0300 (ADT) From: "lordspigol" Subject: Re: How to echo a blank line? echo. >>oof works too. On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:40:37 -0500, ERACC Lists wrote: > echo This line is not blank. The next is. >>oof > echo: >>oof > echo Note the colon : on the end of the echo. >>oof **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:02:10 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:43:42PM +0100, Michael Taylor wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > I'd actually like to see a summary of the tests to see if there is any > > difference. In fact, better still would be the summary produced by running > > ./perl harness in the directory ./t. > > The result of the build was > > Failed 8 test scripts out of 265, 96.98% okay. > > The result of ./perl harness was > > Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > io/pipe.t 2 512 15 7 46.67% 9-15 > lib/bigfltpm.t 370 1 0.27% 165 > lib/io_multihomed.t 255 65280 8 8 100.00% 1-8 > lib/io_sock.t 255 65280 14 14 100.00% 1-14 > lib/io_udp.t 255 65280 7 7 100.00% 1-7 > lib/os2_ea.t 21 8 38.10% 7-11, 14-16 > lib/rx_cmprt.t 255 65280 16 1 6.25% 16 > op/exec.t 8 1 12.50% 4 > 14 tests and 128 subtests skipped. > Failed 8/268 test scripts, 97.01% okay. 47/12936 subtests failed, 99.64% okay. > # I just ran perl harness and got:- Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lib/bigfltpm.t 370 1 0.27% 165 lib/rx_cmprt.t 255 65280 16 1 6.25% 16 17 tests and 128 subtests skipped. Failed 2/268 test scripts, 99.25% okay. 2/12905 subtests failed, 99.98% okay. This confused me initially, as I couldn't see why it should be so different from yours, but it turns out I had set my variables to a my normal build environment rather than the baseline tool set, so it looks as though there is some scope for improvement. > -- > Regards, > Mick > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Michael Taylor miket at pcug.org.au > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Home Page: http://users.bigpond.net.au/miket5au > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:02:21 -0400 From: tsikora at ntplx.net Subject: Re: cc csaba.raduly at sophos.com wrote: > > On 14/07/2002 12:50:57 owner-os2-unix wrote: > > >I'm thinking of including cc.exe as a copy of gcc.exe in a standard > >UnixOS/2 distro. I tried to use cc.cmd which consisted of:- > > > >gcc %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 > > > >but it wouldn't work. > Just copy gcc.exe > cc.exe It should work. It's ln'd like this in most Unices. I had the same problem in Solaris x86. -- Ted Sikora tsikora at unixos2.com http://unixos2.com **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:03:48 -0500 From: email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) Subject: Re: How to echo a blank line? In: <20020714224614.86B612F812F at smtp-1.hotpop.com> On: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:39:54 -0300 (ADT) Screaming: Re: How to echo a blank line? "lordspigol" did rant: +On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:40:37 -0500, ERACC Lists wrote: +> echo This line is not blank. The next is. >>oof +> echo: >>oof +> echo Note the colon : on the end of the echo. >>oof +echo. >>oof +works too. Yup. I've used both but for some reason settled on the colon a while ago and now use it exclusively. Luckily under real *nix OSs the echo command isn't broken and actually returns a blank line if placed on a line by itself. :-) Gene -- +=========================-=>Unix & OS/2<=-=========================+ # Owner and C.E.O. - ERA Computer Consulting - Jackson, TN USA # # eCS,OS/2,UnixWare,OpenServer & Linux Business Computing Solutions # # Please visit our www pages at http://eracc.hypermart.net/ # +===================================================================+ We run IBM OS/2 v.4.00, Revision 9.036 Sysinfo: 44 Processes, 164 Threads, uptime is 1d 23h 52m 57s 371ms **= Email 28 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:27:23 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 01:46:55PM -0500, Maynard wrote: > Failed 11 test scripts out of 258, 95.74% okay. > u=134.84 s=0 cu=0 cs=0 scripts=258 tests=12599 > make: *** [test] Error 1 > > I didn't need any OS/2, other than the linker, in the PATH until Configure in the perl building script; adding /os2 to the PATH enabled Configure to complete successfully. > > I did make changes to the installation scripts which I'll send to John directly, and based upon the following file directory structure which I put to the list for discussion. > > What I opted to do, and propose as a standard here, is I'd like to amend this to make it as Unix-like as possible. > X:\bin > X:\emx In due course, I would like to see the emx directory eliminated, although I think we should keep it for the time being. However I would like to move lib and include to \usr. > X:\etc > X:\home > X:\logs I'd prefer to move logs to somewhere like \var\log. > X:\os2bin is where I unpacked LINK from the OS/2 CD I don't see any need for this. The normal place for LINK386 is under \os2 which does not need to be under X:. > X:\tmp > X:\UnixOS2 Not sure about this at all. If there is a UnixOS2, I don't think it should be off root, but I don't know where it ought to be. > X:\usr > > my_file: base_emx.cmd: (snippets only) > rem taken from baseline/emx-inst.cmd > set path=\bin;\usr\bin;\emx\binų I don't want to include \bin on the path. The only thing there at the moment is sh.exe which is also in \usr\bin. The point in having sh.exe in \bin is to ensure that any shell scripts we expect /bin/sh will work without any problems. > Good work, John! Thanks. > `~Maynard -- John **= Email 29 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:47:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Yuri Prokushev" Subject: Re: How to echo a blank line? On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:55:45 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: echo first >>foo echo. >>foo echo last >>foo >How do I get a blank line in the middle? Use echo. (echo with dot) **= Email 30 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:22:11 +0100 From: Michael Taylor Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 John Poltorak wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:41:01PM +0100, Michael Taylor wrote: > > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:20:46PM -0500, Maynard wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm working on putting your baseline and build_system together here as > > > > a novice. > > > > > > > Thanks again. I'll chirp up when I've rounded the next bend, > > > > > > Just wondered how you or anyone else had got on. > > > > > > There have been quite a few downloads but no word on whether anything > > > actually works. > > > > > > > Hi John, > > I followed your instructions and it did work in the end. > > The only problem I had was setting the path. I had to add > > a few directories to the path to get the build to work. > > Could you let me know what you needed to change? I don't remember unfortunately- getting the path setup right is probably dependent on the individual PC especially those that are non-standard :-) I have had to reset my computer since I ran the test. Looking at the build_perl.sh it seems I added c:\os2 and c:\os2bin so that link386.exe would be found. c:\os2bin is where a lot of little utililites such as "lst.exe" have been installed (equivalent to /usr/local) > > > I also had renamed "link386.exe" in the OS2 directories so it > > didn't get used before the one from one of the toolkits. > > I tried to set the PATH explicitly to as few directories as possible to > obviate the need for doing anything like that Well, I had already done it :-) > > > Anyway apart from that it worked and "perl" built with only > > 8 or 9 tests failing. > > I'd actually like to see a summary of the tests to see if there is any > difference. In fact, better still would be the summary produced by running > ./perl harness in the directory ./t. I'll rebuild and check the results. -- Regards, Mick -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Taylor miket at pcug.org.au ----------------------------------------------------------------- Home Page: http://users.bigpond.net.au/miket5au ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 31 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:43:42 +0100 From: Michael Taylor Subject: Re: Baseline toolset RC1 John Poltorak wrote: > I'd actually like to see a summary of the tests to see if there is any > difference. In fact, better still would be the summary produced by running > ./perl harness in the directory ./t. The result of the build was Failed 8 test scripts out of 265, 96.98% okay. The result of ./perl harness was Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- io/pipe.t 2 512 15 7 46.67% 9-15 lib/bigfltpm.t 370 1 0.27% 165 lib/io_multihomed.t 255 65280 8 8 100.00% 1-8 lib/io_sock.t 255 65280 14 14 100.00% 1-14 lib/io_udp.t 255 65280 7 7 100.00% 1-7 lib/os2_ea.t 21 8 38.10% 7-11, 14-16 lib/rx_cmprt.t 255 65280 16 1 6.25% 16 op/exec.t 8 1 12.50% 4 14 tests and 128 subtests skipped. Failed 8/268 test scripts, 97.01% okay. 47/12936 subtests failed, 99.64% okay. # -- Regards, Mick -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Taylor miket at pcug.org.au ----------------------------------------------------------------- Home Page: http://users.bigpond.net.au/miket5au ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------