From: UnixOS2 Archive
To: "UnixOS2 Archive" <UnixOS2_Archive at unixos2.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:11:39 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600
Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 196

**************************************************
Tuesday 16 September 2003
 Number  196
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1  Re:  waitpid : why does this not work? : Dave Saville" <dave.saville at ntlworld.com>
2   Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Ux2bs] Innotek LIBC : Adrian Gschwend" <ktk at datacomm.ch>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:19:34 +0100 (BST)
From:  "Dave Saville" <dave.saville at ntlworld.com>
Subject:  Re:  waitpid : why does this not work?

Thomas

I use waitpid in tigger - I am not interested in the exit status of
the child(ren). I use:


while ( waitpid(ANY, NULL, WNOHANG) > 0 ); 

ANY is defined as -1, never seen a looping problem, however the code
is not inside a handler and I don't block any signals. Code came from
Solaris and seems to work fine on both platforms.

HTH

-- 
Regards

Dave Saville


**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:32:40 +0200 (CDT)
From:  "Adrian Gschwend" <ktk at datacomm.ch>
Subject:   Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Ux2bs] Innotek LIBC


As followup to Stefans post :-)

cu

Adrian

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
>Return-Path: <Knut.Osmundsen at innotek.de>
>Original-Recipient: rfc822;ktk at tiscalinet.ch
>Received: from notesserver1.innotek.de (212.12.46.231) by mx2.tiscali.ch (6.7.019)
>        id 3F42B5D9007355E2 for ktk at tiscali.ch; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:19:09 +0200
>Sensitivity: 
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Ux2bs] Innotek LIBC
>To: "Adrian Gschwend" <ktk at datacomm.ch>
>From: "Knut Osmundsen" <Knut.Osmundsen at innotek.de>
>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:25:58 +0200
>Message-ID: <OF6C81B6D7.6F2BC1AF-ONC1256DA4.00438355 at innotek.de>
>X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notesserver1/InnoTek/DE(Release 5.0.12  |February 13, 2003) at
> 17.09.2003 14.25.59
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>


Hi.

Just to keep their expectations realistic.
There is _currently_ fork() implementation, neither does select() work
on files - file
handles and socket handles are not _yet_ shared.
All this can be changed. Some things before others. Patches are highly
appreciated!!!

Kind Regards
 knut

PS. Other areas which we like help is 64bit I/O, high memory heap,
general work on
updating headers and implementing/fixing functions as specified by the
opengroup Unix
Specifications.

PPS. Use -Zomf if you like to debug your app. There will be a Beta3 or
GA by the end of
the month which will have 99% working HLL debug features. Meaning you
can use icsdebug,
idebug or idbug (i.e. IBM VisualAge and later debuggers) to debug you C
and C++
applications.





"Adrian Gschwend" <ktk at datacomm.ch> on 09/17/2003 02:01:39 pm

Please respond to "Adrian Gschwend" <ktk at datacomm.ch>

To:    "bird at innotek.de" <bird at innotek.de>
cc:

Subject:    Fwd: Re: [Ux2bs] Innotek LIBC


==================BEGIN FORWARDED
MESSAGE==================
>Return-Path: <Stefan.Neis at t-online.de>
>Original-Recipient: rfc822;ktk at tiscalinet.ch
>Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (194.25.134.17) by mx1.tiscali.ch (6.7.019)
>        id 3F42B299007148C0 for ktk at tiscali.ch; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:50:06 +0200
>Received: from umsgate00.aul.t-online.de
>     by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp
>     id 19zY0g-0001Pr-04; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:50:02 +0200
>Received: from webmail.t-online.de
(Gh9zFiZfZemopSLRyrJND63mSqLXpUGytDg0tJhYwEcyYYryWpnkUk at [172.18.16.206])
 by
umsgate00.bbul.t-online.de
>     with smtp id 19zY0e-1kM5r60; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:50:00 +0200
>To: Adrian Gschwend <ktk at datacomm.ch>, UX2 Build System <ux2bs at os2ports.com>
>Subject: Re: [Ux2bs] Innotek LIBC
>From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de
>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:49:47 +0200 (CEST)
>Message-ID: <1063788255.3f681edf4165a at webmail.t-online.de>
>In-Reply-To: <0038402300.00011E0Z at netfinity.netlabs.org>
>References: <0038402300.00011E0Z at netfinity.netlabs.org>
>X-Approved: 84c764a22cd1ddf2D2FBKF-luHCOdbIid1HUTBgpNf1rxAA6
>X-Mailer: T-Online WebMail 3.10
>X-Complaints-To: abuse#webmail at t-online.com
>X-Seen: false
>X-ID: Gh9zFiZfZemopSLRyrJND63mSqLXpUGytDg0tJhYwEcyYYryWpnkUk at t-dialin.net
>

Adrian Gschwend schrieb:
> >My be its good idea to use innotek LIBC instead of the
> emx lib?
>
> Would make sense IMHO but so far I didn't saw
> any postings from Stefan, Andreas and the
> others about it.

Well, since you're asking for opinions:
IMHO, it would be a good idea to test innotek
libc, but to be honest, I don't quite believe
that it can be used as a drop-in replacement for EMX when it comes to
programs that are using the stranger features of unix (out of the
relatively small packages, rsync might be a
good candidate for first tests, if you dare to
look at large packages XFree would be
interesting ...) - but of course I hope to be
proven wrong... ;-)

        Regards,
               Stefan

===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================



--
Adrian Gschwend
 at  netlabs.org

ktk [a t] netlabs.org
-------
Free Software for OS/2 and eCS
http://www.netlabs.org









===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================



-- 
Adrian Gschwend
 at  netlabs.org

ktk [a t] netlabs.org
-------
Free Software for OS/2 and eCS
http://www.netlabs.org