Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:04:01 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 298 ************************************************** Wednesday 25 February 2004 Number 298 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Dave Webster 2 RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Dave Webster 3 RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Stefan Neis 4 RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Dave Webster 5 RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Dave and Natalie" 6 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Knut St. Osmundsen" 7 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Knut St. Osmundsen" 8 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Henry Sobotka 9 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Knut St. Osmundsen" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:07:18 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 OK, thanks, I'll give it a try. Current one with your patches is working well so far. -----Original Message----- From: Knut St. Osmundsen [mailto:bird at anduin.net] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:38 PM To: os2-unix at mail.warpix.org Subject: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 Hi! Thers a GCC build have available at: http://www.innotek.de/products/gccos2/download/ It contains an updated binutils (v2.14), LIBC includes some new features like sharing socket and file handles, several bugs in LIBC and the emx tools have been fixed. See the release notes for details ("GCC for OS/2 Beta 4 release notes"). Enjoy. Kind Regards, knut **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:12:29 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 Knut indicated to me and others that he doubts a gdb friendly version will ever be supported. I get the impression the ld stuff (.a) is a very low priority. But -Zomf builds work great and you have full debugging with an omf debugger like IPMD from VisualAge. I'll take it to get 100% or 99.9% iso C++ compatiblity which the latest emx does NOT have. -----Original Message----- From: Andrea Venturoli [mailto:ml.ventu at flashnet.it] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:36 AM To: os2-unix at mail.warpix.org Subject: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 ** Reply to note from "Knut St. Osmundsen" Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:37:54 +0100 >It contains an updated binutils (v2.14), LIBC includes some new features >like sharing socket and file handles, several bugs in LIBC and the emx >tools have been fixed. See the release notes for details ("GCC for OS/2 >Beta 4 release notes"). Just wish they had included a debugger... bye & Thanks av. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:19:46 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Dave Webster wrote: > Knut indicated to me and others that he doubts a gdb friendly version will > ever be supported. I get the impression the ld stuff (.a) is a very low > priority. But -Zomf builds work great and you have full debugging with an > omf debugger like IPMD from VisualAge. That would be OK (well, I still don't like to use different debuggers on different platforms, but if it is absolutely necessary, I can live with such restrictions), _if_ such a debugger were available somehow. But in current state of affairs, you can't even buy such a debugger, much less get it for free. :-( I.e. I don't have VisualAge and IBM isn't willing to even sell it anymore. :-( So all I can do for now is stay with the debuggable gcc-2.8.1 and avoid any C++ it can't cope with. :-( Regards, Stefan **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:01:50 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 Ouch. That's going to limit you pretty badly. Doesn't Open Watcom C++ for OS/2 come with an omf debugger? Eventually even wxWindows will eventually go 100% templates, template member functions and friends, namespaces, and C++ exceptions, meaning 2.8 level stuff simply won't work at all for anything. Knut, if you are reading this, what are the Free Omf debugger options out there for OS/2? And I honestly do not think IBM would care if someone just zipped up the needed .exe .dll and .msg files for IPMD from ancient VA 3.0 and put them somewhere for use. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Neis [mailto:neis at cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:20 AM To: 'os2-unix at mail.warpix.org' Subject: RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Dave Webster wrote: > Knut indicated to me and others that he doubts a gdb friendly version will > ever be supported. I get the impression the ld stuff (.a) is a very low > priority. But -Zomf builds work great and you have full debugging with an > omf debugger like IPMD from VisualAge. That would be OK (well, I still don't like to use different debuggers on different platforms, but if it is absolutely necessary, I can live with such restrictions), _if_ such a debugger were available somehow. But in current state of affairs, you can't even buy such a debugger, much less get it for free. :-( I.e. I don't have VisualAge and IBM isn't willing to even sell it anymore. :-( So all I can do for now is stay with the debuggable gcc-2.8.1 and avoid any C++ it can't cope with. :-( Regards, Stefan **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:29:59 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:19:46 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Dave Webster wrote: > >> Knut indicated to me and others that he doubts a gdb friendly version will >> ever be supported. I get the impression the ld stuff (.a) is a very low >> priority. But -Zomf builds work great and you have full debugging with an >> omf debugger like IPMD from VisualAge. > >That would be OK (well, I still don't like to use different debuggers on >different platforms, but if it is absolutely necessary, I can live with >such restrictions), _if_ such a debugger were available somehow. >But in current state of affairs, you can't even buy such a debugger, much >less get it for free. :-( >I.e. I don't have VisualAge and IBM isn't willing to even sell it >anymore. :-( > >So all I can do for now is stay with the debuggable gcc-2.8.1 and avoid >any C++ it can't cope with. :-( > There is SD386V50 on Hobbes which should handle the OMF debugging but it seems to only be a C debugger that tolerates C++. I haven't actually tried to use it yet. Icat should also work though you may need 2 machines as it is really meant for debugging device drivers etc. Watcom puts its debug info into a different format then GCC so I don't think it would work. Dave **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:23:53 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 Dave Webster wrote: > Ouch. That's going to limit you pretty badly. Doesn't Open Watcom C++ for > OS/2 come with an omf debugger? Eventually even wxWindows will eventually > go 100% templates, template member functions and friends, namespaces, and > C++ exceptions, meaning 2.8 level stuff simply won't work at all for > anything. It's not that I'm unfriendly against gdb, it's only that the day have 24 hours, the week 7 days, and so on.. We have obligations to support a given HLL debugger (which unfortunately isn't available anywhere at the moment (I've no idea if the Mozilla guys is gonna put it out or not)). I would rather spend time on going for GCC 3.3.3, getting binutils ld working, implement fork(), and so on, instead of porint and supporting yet another debugger which I'm not going to use anyway (I must use the HLL debuggers in order to test HLL debuginfo). If anyone cares enough for gdb the sources are there, I'm willing to answer questions, I accept patches (unless they are crap/bad/ugly). > Knut, if you are reading this, what are the Free Omf debugger options out > there for OS/2? There is sd386 or something like that, I haven't tried it the last 4 years. Source code and everything were around last time I looked. Kind Regards, knut PS. I'm gonna write a fork() design draft tonight - we got someone who might have time to implement it (it's not me). So, the next LIBC release might perhaps include fork(). > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Neis [mailto:neis at cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:20 AM > To: 'os2-unix at mail.warpix.org' > Subject: RE: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 > > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Dave Webster wrote: > > >>Knut indicated to me and others that he doubts a gdb friendly version will >>ever be supported. I get the impression the ld stuff (.a) is a very low >>priority. But -Zomf builds work great and you have full debugging with an >>omf debugger like IPMD from VisualAge. > > > That would be OK (well, I still don't like to use different debuggers on > different platforms, but if it is absolutely necessary, I can live with > such restrictions), _if_ such a debugger were available somehow. > But in current state of affairs, you can't even buy such a debugger, much > less get it for free. :-( > I.e. I don't have VisualAge and IBM isn't willing to even sell it > anymore. :-( > > So all I can do for now is stay with the debuggable gcc-2.8.1 and avoid > any C++ it can't cope with. :-( > > Regards, > Stefan > > **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:33:00 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 Henry Sobotka wrote: > Wow! I'm impressed just from reading the release notes. stuff might look more impressive than it really is ... :-) > What's the difference between DLL and shared? meaning options or terms or what? gcc option -shared == -Zdll. (Although I'm not sure if I've actually updated the gcc specs to do that.) DLL == shared library. When linking with 'shared' libraires (-dy,-Bshared, and one more I think which I don't recall right now) that means prefering import librairies over static libraries. Thus all the fancy library suffixes to figure what is what. Kind Regards, knut **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:25:08 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > > DLL == shared library. So I thought, but the release notes mention three variations: static, shared and shared+DLL. If shared == DLL, then what's the difference from shared alone? Or is the third option a typo for static+[shared|DLL]? That's what has me confused. h~ -- Free software, free minds. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:52:22 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 Henry Sobotka wrote: > Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > >>DLL == shared library. > > > So I thought, but the release notes mention three variations: static, > shared and shared+DLL. If shared == DLL, then what's the difference from > shared alone? Or is the third option a typo for static+[shared|DLL]? > That's what has me confused. Ah, sorry, I don't even recall what I've written... shared+DLL mean as you can see that an option -Zdll-search is specified to the linker. This causes the linker to look for DLLs as well as normal libraries during library search. When -Zdll-search is given to the linker (and it's linking with shared libraries) it will look for a .dll file as well as the normal multitude of libraries. If a DLL is found the linker will invoke emximp.dll -o [directory\].dll, thus creating an import library for the dll and use that in the link. Mark that this feature may be a bit risky as one might easily end up linking with some old DLL which happend to be in the LIBRARY_PATH. The features is therefore disabled by default and will require the -Zdll-search option to be enabled. The -Zdll-search options and the above warning does not include linking explicitly with a DLL, for instance: gcc -o foo foo.o ./bar.dll The linker will then see the .dll extension and generate a temporary import library using emximp as above. The option for disabling this feature is -Zno-autoconv. BTW. A related and very useful feature (IMHO) is the automatic convertion of a.out objects/libraries to temporary omf objects/libraries during linking. I've used this feature to build both GCC and Binutils, meaning LDFLAGS=-Zomf while I don't care about CFLAGS. This gives me a.out libraries and OMF linked .EXEs & .DLLs with HLL debug info if one uses -g all around the place. Kind Regards, knut