From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:37:19 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 332 ************************************************** Sunday 29 September 2002 Number 332 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Some news : Franz Bakan" 2 Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing : Thomas E. Dickey" 3 Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing : DWParsons at t-online.de (Dave Parsons) 4 Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing : John Poltorak 5 Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing : Adrian Gschwend" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:53:50 +0200 (CEST) From: "Franz Bakan" Subject: Re: Some news On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:29:31 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: ... >gettext 0.11.2 beta >Uses iconv2 (statically linked) and libunixos2. It's more a proof >of concept than a fully featured package. :-) 1. When I try to use intl.dll from this package with XSane (built with another older version of intl.a (10.35)) I get: G:\XFree86\bin>xsane.exe Process terminated by SIGSEGV core dumped (Using 'my own' 11.2 intl.dll compiled some time ago works.) 2. as allways with these gettext versions based on iconv/2 0.1.2: msgmerge mustek.de.po.old mustek.pot -o mustek.de.po ..... fertig. Process terminated by SIGSEGV Besides the SIGSEGV-problem msmerge seems to work as designed. So running make several times would be a workaround. Some time ago I tried to debug the problem and reported the following to to Andrew Z.: I have used pmgdb to debug and found out that the msgmerge crashes at line 1441 in gettext-0.11.2\lib\linebreak.c size_t res = iconv (cd, NULL, NULL, &outptr, &outsize); but I never got an answer: UNDELIVERABLE MAIL Your message to the following recipients cannot be delivered: : <<< Mailbox full. Regards Franz **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:58:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Steve Wendt wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:24:30 -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > >> Why not 3.2? 3.1.x is dead? > > > >when someone bumps the version number suddenly like that, I tend to > >assume that the newer version is the one that's unstable. > > No, they bumped the version number to indicate that it was (again) incompatible > with the previous version. All the Linux distros are quickly moving to 3.2, so that > the 3.0.x and 3.1.x versions can be forgotten as soon as possible. I understood that - but the difference in time between 3.1 and 3.2 was too short to believe that the transition was done on a planned basis (more like responding to a blunder). -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:19:14 +0200 (CES) From: DWParsons at t-online.de (Dave Parsons) Subject: Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wendt wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:42:26 +0300 (MSK), Andrew Belov wrote: > > >Still waiting for a decent GCC v 3.1.x port, though. :-( > > Why not 3.2? 3.1.x is dead? > 3.2.1 is due mid October and the current experimental version is already 3.3. Our problem is that the latest we have is 3.0.2/3 and even these OS/2 changes are not in the main development line. Also the main line is moving fast, perhaps too fast according to some, which does not give the team time to fix the regressions while trying to add new features. A working 3.1 is also required as a base if we are ever to get a later version of Ada for OS/2. I think it should still be possible with 3.2, but there will come a time when the jump from 3.14 based on gcc 2.8.1 is too great and we will still need the intervening version(s) because of ACT's backward compatibility policy. 3.0.2/3 did not contain the Ada code. Dave **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:13:09 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:19:14AM +0200, Dave Parsons wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wendt wrote: > > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:42:26 +0300 (MSK), Andrew Belov wrote: > > > > >Still waiting for a decent GCC v 3.1.x port, though. :-( > > > > Why not 3.2? 3.1.x is dead? > > > > 3.2.1 is due mid October and the current experimental > version is already 3.3. > > Our problem is that the latest we have is 3.0.2/3 and even > these OS/2 changes are not in the main development line. Has anyone had any contact with AZ in recent months? I'm not at all sure if he is still working on the OS/2 port of 3.0.3, or even using OS/2... > Dave -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:27:46 +0200 (CDT) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Summary: gcc 3.0.3 testing On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:13:09 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Has anyone had any contact with AZ in recent months? I'm not at all sure >if he is still working on the OS/2 port of 3.0.3, or even using OS/2... I asked Stauff, he told Andy is alive and plans to release a new port. However he seems not to be on the list. I forwarded the last few GCC mails to Stauff, I think he will then forward them to Andy and hopefuly both of them will show up on this list soon :-) Stauff: Please ask Andy to release GCC 3.2 with the FHS file structure, everything else should be avoided from now on. (I forward you the draft of the FHS for OS/2 in another mail) cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at OS/2 Netlabs ICQ: 22419590 ktk at netlabs.org ------- The OS/2 OpenSource Project: http://www.netlabs.org