Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:36:11 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 268 ************************************************** Saturday 13 December 2003 Number 268 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h : Stefan Neis 2 Re: New ZLIB : Stefan Neis 3 Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h : John Poltorak 4 Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h : John Poltorak 5 Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h : Stefan Neis 6 Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h : Stefan Neis 7 Re: curses! this libncurses thing... : John Poltorak 8 Re: curses! this libncurses thing... : Stefan Neis 9 Re: curses! this libncurses thing... : Henry Sobotka 10 Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h : Knut St. Osmundsen" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:09:00 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 01:31:43PM +0000, Pete Milne wrote: > > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >Anyone know where I should expect to find stdint.h or inttypes.h? > > > > > > > http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/mirrors/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/sys/sys/ > > > Hmmm... > > Couldn't they be bundled in with Posix/2? If someone has a versions that been verified to work with Posix/2, I'll gladly include it into an updated Posix/2 distribution. The versions I had a really quick look at, all seem to include lots of other header files which look like they might be missing as well. And since I'm short of time, I didn't try to sort this out myself. Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:15:09 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: New ZLIB On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > What we really need to look into is updating a bunch of DLLs, eg Z.dll, the graphic DLLs etc. The biggest > > change that needs to be made is importing by name instead of ordinal. A lot of programs are linked against > > Hung-Chi Chu versions which all uses ordinals. > > What we really need is for someone to take ownership of various apps and > become the OS/2 maitainer. Actually, _if_ we do switch to import by name, someone taking ownership is not _that_ important, as that way versions compiled by different people should be rather compatible... > > Ideally would be a new naming convention to keep the new DLLs seperate eg adding ux so Z.DLL would > > become Zux.DLL or uxZ.DLL. > > Oh no! I would hate that. I already have far too mant different version of > an INTL dll and want to rationalise my apps rather than have a > proliferation of even more incompatible versions of the same DLL Agreed. However, this requires two things: 1. New library version itself must be backward compatible, so old applications continue to work. This is not always the case (see libpng for a nasty sample). 2. Even when switching to import by name, the OS/2 port must maintain the old ordinals, which means no fully automated build is possible. > refreshed periodically to incorporate new versions of DLLs. This is what > happens with all the different Linux distros and I don't see why it can't > be done with UnixOS/2. Note however, that Linux distros _do_ have multiple version of some "shared objects". Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:53:46 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:09:00PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 01:31:43PM +0000, Pete Milne wrote: > > > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > >Anyone know where I should expect to find stdint.h or inttypes.h? > > > > > > > > > > http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/mirrors/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/sys/sys/ > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > Couldn't they be bundled in with Posix/2? > > If someone has a versions that been verified to work with Posix/2, I'll > gladly include it into an updated Posix/2 distribution. The versions I had > a really quick look at, all seem to include lots of other header files > which look like they might be missing as well. > And since I'm short of time, I didn't try to sort this out myself. stdint.h looks to be part of GLIBC. I thought you wanted to avoid that if at all possible. > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:50:29 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:32:41PM +0000, Pete Milne wrote: > Pete Milne wrote: > > > John Poltorak wrote: > > > >> Anyone know where I should expect to find stdint.h or inttypes.h? > >> > > > > http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/mirrors/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/sys/sys/ inttypes.h looks straightforward enough but stdint.h looks as if it might open a can of worms... > > > > > > Pete -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:26:42 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >Anyone know where I should expect to find stdint.h or inttypes.h? > > stdint.h looks to be part of GLIBC. I thought you wanted to avoid that if > at all possible. Actually, I'm always confused about stdint.h and inttypes.h, one of them might in fact be GLIBC specific, but most apps seems to be happy with having just one of them. Only "none of them" is not quite enough more and more often... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:24:18 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > stdint.h looks to be part of GLIBC. I thought you wanted to avoid that if > at all possible. I think it might be part of C99 standard, so it should become part of any C library implementation, not only of the "GNU C library" (aka GLIBC). In short: If you find it on FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD as well, it's a "standard" feature (as those don't use GLIBC), if you don't, then it isn't. ;-) Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:17:12 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: curses! this libncurses thing... On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:58:04PM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > > configure.:4969: checking for initscr in -lncurses > > configure.:5000: gcc -o conftest.exe -g -O2 conftest.c -lncurses > > -lstdc++ >&5 > > Try changing -lstdc++ to -lstdcpp or -lstdcxx (depending on what version > of gcc you're using). How? I'm running autoconf and configure. What do I change? Configure.in? > h~ > -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:52:50 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: curses! this libncurses thing... On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > Try changing -lstdc++ to -lstdcpp or -lstdcxx (depending on what version > > of gcc you're using). > > How? > > I'm running autoconf and configure. What do I change? Configure.in? Exactly. It might be easier to copy stdcpp.a (or stdcxx.a) and the corresponding lib to stdc++.a (and .lib), though and leave the configure.in as is ... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:15:04 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: curses! this libncurses thing... John Poltorak wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:58:04PM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > > > > Try changing -lstdc++ to -lstdcpp or -lstdcxx (depending on what version > > of gcc you're using). > > How? > > I'm running autoconf and configure. What do I change? Configure.in? If you're talking about the Kismet 3.0.1, -lstdc++ is hardwired as LIBS on line 117 of configure.in. You could add a case os2*) that just sets LIBS to $LIBS (and add the appropriate -lstdc.. to LIBS in your environment, or that tests for the gcc version (I believe there's an AC macro for that; Andreas would likely know) and sets it appropriately. h~ **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:31:02 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: could not find stdint.h or inttypes.h John Poltorak wrote: > Anyone know where I should expect to find stdint.h or inttypes.h? GCC 3.2.2 have both of them (borrowed from FreeBSD 5.1). Kind Regards, knut PS. Next GCC beta will merge socket & file handles, it being tested now.