From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:09:55 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 162 ************************************************** Wednesday 06 August 2003 Number 162 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: libc01 : Alex Newman" 2 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : Alex Newman" 3 Re: configure, autoconf, etc. : Alex Newman" 4 Re: Mozilla_build script : T.Sikora" 5 Re: Mozilla_build script : Stefan Neis 6 Re: Mozilla_build script : Andreas Buening 7 Re: Re: libc01 : Alexander Newman 8 Re: Re: gcc 3.2.1 : Alexander Newman 9 Re: Mozilla_build script : Alex Newman" 10 Re: configure, autoconf, etc. : Alex Newman" 11 Re: Mozilla_build script : Stefan Neis 12 Re: configure, autoconf, etc. : Alex Newman" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:28:08 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: libc01 On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:06:27 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > Does anyone here know anything about libc01 which recently arrived at > Hobbes? > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/new/libc01.zip It comes from Innotek - as part of their so-far unreleased port of gcc 3.2.2. I think. It's required for new releases of Firebird and (the 1st release of) Thunderbird. Maybe someone's testing the GNU copyleft by putting the file on hobbes. Alex. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:28:43 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:11:43 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > Where does the recent gcc v3.2.1 on Hobbes originate from? Henry Sobotka, I believe. Alex. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:31:08 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: configure, autoconf, etc. On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:40:38 -0800, Dave and Natalie wrote: > On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:08:31 +1000 (EST), Alex Newman wrote: > > >Who on this list knows a lot about autoconf/make/update/header/m4te and > >configure? > > > >Are there any OS/2-specific tricks to patching configure.in/aclocal.m4? > > > >I'm using autoconf 2.57 and automake 1.2.7 (not sure about the latter > >version - it's on the other machine). > > For Blackbox just get the autoconf (ver2.13) package on Hobbes > (http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/util/autoconf213.zip) This will > create a good configure script. > Blackbox ver 62.1 was the last one that I could build and get working. > With later versions Sean combined all the EMX patches into one function > and I don't know enough toget it working. > I'd advise disabling NLS support if you don't need it. IIRC only one > version of GCC worked, 2.95 IIRC. If you get errors about virtual > memory exhausted try removing the optimaztion. > Dave > ps if you get it to build make sure you tell Sean Thanks for the tips.I'll do some tinkering. Alex. **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:54:37 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script Stefan Neis wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > >>There have been so many postings about Innotek's libc. Does anybody >>know what it really is? > > > Nothing precise is known so far (waiting for source code ...) > > >>Is it emx compatible, anything completely new, > > > More or less completely new. > > >>Posix/SysV/BSD-like? Some time ago Adrian announced that somebody >>could tell us something but I haven't heard anything about it later. > > > The rumours to got to me via the various mailing lists (UnixOS2, EMX) > essentially say two things: > > 1. It's a library targetted at easy native application development, > not really written with the aim of maximum Unix compatibility. > 2. It's derived from FreeBSD-5 libraries. > > And yes, those two items _do_ seem a bit contradictory. :-( > All we can do for the moment apparently is wait and see till we get > the sources, which should appear real soon now (or at least, that's > what I have been hearing for quite some time now. :-( ). > Anyone using Innotek's GCC here? I see no other way I'll probably be buying it. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:59:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > There have been so many postings about Innotek's libc. Does anybody > know what it really is? Nothing precise is known so far (waiting for source code ...) > Is it emx compatible, anything completely new, More or less completely new. > Posix/SysV/BSD-like? Some time ago Adrian announced that somebody > could tell us something but I haven't heard anything about it later. The rumours to got to me via the various mailing lists (UnixOS2, EMX) essentially say two things: 1. It's a library targetted at easy native application development, not really written with the aim of maximum Unix compatibility. 2. It's derived from FreeBSD-5 libraries. And yes, those two items _do_ seem a bit contradictory. :-( All we can do for the moment apparently is wait and see till we get the sources, which should appear real soon now (or at least, that's what I have been hearing for quite some time now. :-( ). Regards, Stefan **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:42:01 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script Stefan Neis wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > There have been so many postings about Innotek's libc. Does anybody > > know what it really is? [snip] > The rumours to got to me via the various mailing lists (UnixOS2, EMX) > essentially say two things: > > 1. It's a library targetted at easy native application development, > not really written with the aim of maximum Unix compatibility. > 2. It's derived from FreeBSD-5 libraries. > > And yes, those two items _do_ seem a bit contradictory. :-( > All we can do for the moment apparently is wait and see till we get > the sources, which should appear real soon now (or at least, that's > what I have been hearing for quite some time now. :-( ). That's exactly the same kind of useless rumours I've heard myself. :-( We need a real answer and we need the real source. And we need it now (or within the next month or so). Otherwise nothing will be decided, nothing will happen, everybody will still wait for libemu/Innotek/christmas/insert_your_favorite_here. If Innotek doesn't do anything we'll have to try to start to revive emx again. We've really been stuck long enough. Just my 0.02 cents. Bye, Andreas **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:53:06 +1000 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: Re: libc01 > Steve Wendt wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:28:08 +1000 (EST), Alex Newman wrote: > > >It comes from Innotek - as part of their so-far unreleased port of > gcc > >3.2.2. I think. It's required for new releases of Firebird and (the > 1st > >release of) Thunderbird. > > > >Maybe someone's testing the GNU copyleft by putting the file on > hobbes. > > What's the test - that the source is not (yet?) available? Yes. But I live in hope... Alex. **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:55:11 +1000 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: Re: gcc 3.2.1 > Henry Sobotka wrote: > > Alex Newman wrote: > > > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:11:43 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > Where does the recent gcc v3.2.1 on Hobbes originate from? > > > > Henry Sobotka, I believe. > > Nope. I would imagine it's Andy's port repackaged. Oops, sorry. It was too early in the morning. Various readmes had Mr Zabolotny's name on them. Alex. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:50:40 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:59:36 +0200 (CEST), Stefan Neis wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > There have been so many postings about Innotek's libc. Does anybody > > know what it really is? > > Nothing precise is known so far (waiting for source code ...) > > > Is it emx compatible, anything completely new, > > More or less completely new. Maybe it will contain functions that are referenced by inttype.h/stdint.h/wchar.h/wctype.h (none of which are in gcc3.2.1). It's not going to be of much use(?) under emx unless an a.out or omf lib is available (correct me if I'm wrong). Alex. **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:53:16 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: configure, autoconf, etc. On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:24:54 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > Alex Newman wrote: > > Who on this list knows a lot about autoconf/make/update/header/m4te and > > configure? > > > > Are there any OS/2-specific tricks to patching configure.in/aclocal.m4? > > > > I'm using autoconf 2.57 and automake 1.2.7 (not sure about the latter > > version - it's on the other machine). > > > > I managed to build sed 4 in order to build blackbox (configure choked > > on sed 3), but configure or one of the other tools now fails to create > > 'depcomp' (dependancy shell script) in the 'root' of the source tree. > > I'm having problems with sed too. The version from UX2 chokes on Mozilla > but runs ok with everything else. Seems to be related to building under > gcc-3.2.1?? I have no sed problems when using 2.8.1 Is that possible? > sed 4.0.4 however will not work with configure and autoconf in 2.8.1 but > is fine in GCC. sed 4.0.5 seems to be working ok with auto*** and gcc (as far as I can tell - which isn't a lot). I think I got the source off your web site. Alex. **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:12:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, T.Sikora wrote: > Anyone using Innotek's GCC here? I see no other way I'll probably be > buying it. Buying? I though it's free? Only the support (I.e. fixing the compiler for you when you encounter the dreaded "internal compiler error" or if it is generating wrong code) was supposed to be not free of charge, AFAIK. I.e. the same idea as for cygnus (who are offering commercial support for gcc on Unix and Windows) - and about the same price (i.e. really [too] expensive for a single user, something in the region of 10 k$ :-( ). Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:21:07 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: configure, autoconf, etc. On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:12:59 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:08:31PM +1000, Alex Newman wrote: > > > Who on this list knows a lot about autoconf/make/update/header/m4te and > > > configure? > > > > Andreas Buening is the expert and actually does everything possible to > > ensure that any modifications to autoconf or automake are OS/2 compatible. > > Thanks for your friendly words but I haven't done anything productive > last time. ;-) > > > This makes a big difference to getting apps to build correctly from > > original source. > > To answer the original questions: You need at least automake 1.7.x. > You can also try --disable-dependency-tracking. This should disable > the need for depcomp. For a more detailed answer I need more input. > :-) automake is 1.7.2. I've tracked some problems down to wrong environmental settings. I'll try --disable-dependancy-checking and see what happens. At least I was able to build/install autoconf and automake themselves. I did managed to persuade the blackbox 0.65 install process to compile most of the object code this morning, but the last few source files were showstoppers. I'm not sure what the problem is here. More experiments are required. Alex.