Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:04:02 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 321 ************************************************** Sunday 21 March 2004 Number 321 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Sorry for a dumb question : Dave Saville" 2 Re: Sorry for a dumb question : John Poltorak 3 Ada & gcc 3.2.2 : John Poltorak 4 Re: Posix/2 and Innotek gcc : John Poltorak 5 Re: Sorry for a dumb question : Dave Saville" 6 Re: Sorry for a dumb question : John Poltorak 7 Re: Posix/2 and Innotek gcc : Knut St. Osmundsen" 8 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : Knut St. Osmundsen" 9 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : John Poltorak 10 Re: Ada & gcc 3.2.2 : John Merryweather Cooper 11 Re: Ada & gcc 3.2.2 : John Merryweather Cooper 12 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : Knut St. Osmundsen" 13 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : John Poltorak 14 Posix/2 -> libc : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:48:49 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Sorry for a dumb question On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:01:53 +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: >John Poltorak wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:50:18AM -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >> > But is there a UnixOS2 service that allows one to connect to remote Xwindows >> > sessions on Linux ala cygwin's xwin -query ? >> >> I'm no expert on these things, but I thought you connected to a remote >> system by setting the DISPLAY variable appropriately before running >> startx... Not exactly. The DISPLAY variable or -display as part of the command start, will direct the *output* of an app to another box - provided xhost has been run on the remote box to allow displays from other users - note not just other boxes. You need xhost set even on the same box for user a to display on user b's desktop. > >I'm not sure about this. xstart -query hostname or similar should >work but I haven't done this for a long time. Yeah, I've done it before a long time ago too :-) Actually I think you need to start the xserver that way D:/XFREE86/BIN/XF86_SVGA.EXE -query There are two ways to get a remote system to write to *your* system. One is to telnet into the remote box and start whatever to display back to you. The second, and one I prefer when you need to do a lot of work on the remote box, is to use the above syntax. What this does is to give you an entire desktop from the remote box - just as if you were using the local screen on that box. HTH -- Regards Dave Saville **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:38:08 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Sorry for a dumb question On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:48:49PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > Actually I think you need to start the xserver that way > > D:/XFREE86/BIN/XF86_SVGA.EXE -query This would no longer work. Does anyone know what to run under v4.4.0? > > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:49:43 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Ada & gcc 3.2.2 Gcc 3.2.2 includes quite a lot of Ada files. Does this mean that it can be used to build the latest version of GNAT? -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:54:54 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Posix/2 and Innotek gcc On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:46:43PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > > As I understand it, Innotek's gcc is being touted as the future standard > > version of gcc on OS/2. Can anyone say where that leaves Posix/2? > > > > Is it possible that the Posix/2 project is likely to get incorporated into > > the new gcc? > > Actually Posix/2 is mainly adding *BSD functionality that's "missing" in > EMX into that. Innotek's libc is based on FreeBSD's libc anyway, though > Knut said he's only porting what's actually needed. Presumably there is some degree of overlap between Posix/2 and Innotek's libc in which case both might include different versions of the same headers... > When Innotek's libc has stabilised and I have some free time slot, I plan > to visit Posix/2 and check what's included in Innotek's libc and what (if > any) is not, possibly bundling the remaining parts into a new release, but > I expect the vast majority of Posix/2 to be(come) part of the new libc... It would be neat to incorporate Posix/2 into libc and then the Posix/2 would no loner be required... > Regards, > Stefan > -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:06:55 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Sorry for a dumb question On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:38:08 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:48:49PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > >> Actually I think you need to start the xserver that way >> >> D:/XFREE86/BIN/XF86_SVGA.EXE -query > >This would no longer work. Does anyone know what to run under v4.4.0? > I would imagine whatever XSERVER is set to. -- Regards Dave Saville **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:17:51 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Sorry for a dumb question On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 02:06:55PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:38:08 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:48:49PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > > > >> Actually I think you need to start the xserver that way > >> > >> D:/XFREE86/BIN/XF86_SVGA.EXE -query > > > >This would no longer work. Does anyone know what to run under v4.4.0? > > > > I would imagine whatever XSERVER is set to. I think XFree86.exe is now the universal XSERVER - which simplifies things quite a bit. > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:05:50 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: Posix/2 and Innotek gcc John Poltorak wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:46:43PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >>> As I understand it, Innotek's gcc is being touted as the future >>> standard version of gcc on OS/2. Can anyone say where that leaves >>> Posix/2? >>> >>> Is it possible that the Posix/2 project is likely to get >>> incorporated into the new gcc? >> >> Actually Posix/2 is mainly adding *BSD functionality that's >> "missing" in EMX into that. Innotek's libc is based on FreeBSD's >> libc anyway, though Knut said he's only porting what's actually >> needed. (It's not based on FreeBSD libc, it's just that I go code shopping a lot there and that I prefere the (Free)BSD headers over the GNU ones since they are usually less complex/bloated (one can argue that they're less informative of course).) >> When Innotek's libc has stabilised and I have some free time slot, >> I plan to visit Posix/2 and check what's included in Innotek's libc >> and what (if any) is not, possibly bundling the remaining parts >> into a new release, but I expect the vast majority of Posix/2 to >> be(come) part of the new libc... About the stabilised stuff, don't wait for that, just find that free time slot. :-) > It would be neat to incorporate Posix/2 into libc and then the > Posix/2 would no longer be required... I wouldn't at all be apposed to such an idea, only I've no knowlegde about Posix/2 and only limited spare time to spend. Contributions on the subject would therefore be prefered. But since that takes time, just making a list of what's missing in LIBC compared to Posix/2 would be of great help over my current policy (which is to randomly select features I think migth come in handy). Kind Regards, knut **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:40:40 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 John Poltorak wrote: > Does anyone have any hints or tips on building gcc 3.2.2? hint: nightmare. tip: don't do it. ;-) In theory it shouldn't be that hard, it is after standard GNU stuff. Run configure with language selection, run make or make bootstrap. You can perhaps get some hints on the configure options from the cfg.sh scripts. Just keep in mind that they are for gcc321/eary-gcc322, and that I never used them (Andy did). > I've just pulled the source from Innotek and haven't come across any > OS/2 specific README so far... I received no docs from Andy, I've written no docs on the subject. I'll be happy to assist any developer intending to contribute to LIBC getting that stuff building. As for GCC I don't expect anyone to contribute in any way there, so I'm rather reluctant to spending spare time helping building it. Kind Regards, knut **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:59:53 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 07:40:40PM +0100, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > Does anyone have any hints or tips on building gcc 3.2.2? > > hint: nightmare. > tip: don't do it. > > ;-) It should only be a nightmare for the first person trying. After that everyone should be able to benefit from that person's experience. > In theory it shouldn't be that hard, it is after standard GNU stuff. Run > configure with language selection, run make or make bootstrap. Personally, I would like to incorporate building it into UX2BS. Once I have devised a build script, it should be as easy as running 'build gcc'... Will it build using gcc v2.8.1 ? And do you have a patch file which you apply to the original GNU source? > You can perhaps get some hints on the configure options from the cfg.sh > scripts. Just keep in mind that they are for gcc321/eary-gcc322, and > that I never used them (Andy did). I've just had a look and it appears to me that this is simply patching configure rather than rebuilding configure using autoconf. IMV getting the required changes done via autoconf is the right way of going about it. > > I've just pulled the source from Innotek and haven't come across any > > OS/2 specific README so far... > > I received no docs from Andy, I've written no docs on the subject. > > I'll be happy to assist any developer intending to contribute to LIBC > getting that stuff building. As for GCC I don't expect anyone to > contribute in any way there, so I'm rather reluctant to spending spare > time helping building it. All I'm trying to do is document the steps involved in getting it to build. The easier it is to build, the easier it will be for anyone else to contribute to LIBC. I'd be very happy to see Posix/2 being completely replaced by your LIBC > Kind Regards, > knut -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:28:08 -0800 From: John Merryweather Cooper Subject: Re: Ada & gcc 3.2.2 The latest GNAT is part of the most recent gcc's. jmc John Poltorak wrote: > Gcc 3.2.2 includes quite a lot of Ada files. Does this mean that it can be > used to build the latest version of GNAT? > > **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:28:08 -0800 From: John Merryweather Cooper Subject: Re: Ada & gcc 3.2.2 The latest GNAT is part of the most recent gcc's. jmc John Poltorak wrote: > Gcc 3.2.2 includes quite a lot of Ada files. Does this mean that it can be > used to build the latest version of GNAT? > > **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 06:11:40 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 John Poltorak wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 07:40:40PM +0100, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > >> John Poltorak wrote: >> >>> Does anyone have any hints or tips on building gcc 3.2.2? >> >> hint: nightmare. tip: don't do it. >> >> ;-) > > > It should only be a nightmare for the first person trying. After that > everyone should be able to benefit from that person's experience. > True, but you know humans have the ability to suppress bad memories.. >> In theory it shouldn't be that hard, it is after standard GNU >> stuff. Run configure with language selection, run make or make >> bootstrap. > > > Personally, I would like to incorporate building it into UX2BS. I can understand that from the we-wanna-build-everything-our-selvs perspective (like I'm installing gentoo from stage 1). But from the perspective of the GCC port maintainer I don't like the idea. It will most likely increase my workload. It will surely lead to more questions about why it doesn't build, or why the builds people make doesn't works quite right, or why gcc 2.8.1 no longer can build it. I'm better of rewriting signals, integrating pthreads, or adding missing posix/2 features than answering such mails. > Once I have devised a build script, it should be as easy as running > 'build gcc'... > > Will it build using gcc v2.8.1 ? And do you have a patch file which > you apply to the original GNU source? I don't think it builds with v2.8.1 anylonger. If it does, that is surely only for adventurous people No, I don't have a patch file for the current release. I'll try remember to add that to the next release. >> You can perhaps get some hints on the configure options from the >> cfg.sh scripts. Just keep in mind that they are for >> gcc321/eary-gcc322, and that I never used them (Andy did). > > > I've just had a look and it appears to me that this is simply > patching configure rather than rebuilding configure using autoconf. > IMV getting the required changes done via autoconf is the right way > of going about it. It's very old hacks, no longer used. But, it's the closest thing to documentation you'll find. >>> I've just pulled the source from Innotek and haven't come across >>> any OS/2 specific README so far... >> >> I received no docs from Andy, I've written no docs on the subject. >> >> I'll be happy to assist any developer intending to contribute to >> LIBC getting that stuff building. As for GCC I don't expect anyone >> to contribute in any way there, so I'm rather reluctant to spending >> spare time helping building it. > > > All I'm trying to do is document the steps involved in getting it to > build. The easier it is to build, the easier it will be for anyone > else to contribute to LIBC. I'd be very happy to see Posix/2 being > completely replaced by your LIBC Just to repeat what I said 100% clearly: - I'm not going to help anyone with GCC unless they promiss to fix specific bugs. - I will help anyone who wanna help implementing LX and OMF backends in Binutils and fix the LD bugs. - I will help anyone who wanna play with LIBC and perhaps send me a patch or two. As for replacing Posix/2, I like the idea. :-) I'm checking out the tree now. Kind Regards, knut **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:24:05 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 06:11:40AM +0100, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > But from the perspective of the GCC port maintainer I don't like the > idea. It will most likely increase my workload. It will surely lead to > more questions about why it doesn't build, or why the builds people make > doesn't works quite right, or why gcc 2.8.1 no longer can build it. I'm > better of rewriting signals, integrating pthreads, or adding missing > posix/2 features than answering such mails. Sure, there are very few people around who can provide us with an uptodate gcc and I wouldn't want to take your time away from that. My only concern is that a transition from gcc 2.8.1 to 3.2.2 or newer as the standard compiler will be as smooth as possible for as many existing apps as possible. > >> I received no docs from Andy, I've written no docs on the subject. > >> > >> I'll be happy to assist any developer intending to contribute to > >> LIBC getting that stuff building. As for GCC I don't expect anyone > >> to contribute in any way there, so I'm rather reluctant to spending > >> spare time helping building it. > > > > > > All I'm trying to do is document the steps involved in getting it to > > build. The easier it is to build, the easier it will be for anyone > > else to contribute to LIBC. I'd be very happy to see Posix/2 being > > completely replaced by your LIBC > > Just to repeat what I said 100% clearly: > - I'm not going to help anyone with GCC unless they promiss to fix > specific bugs. > - I will help anyone who wanna help implementing LX and OMF backends in > Binutils and fix the LD bugs. > - I will help anyone who wanna play with LIBC and perhaps send me a > patch or two. > > As for replacing Posix/2, I like the idea. :-) > I'm checking out the tree now. There has been a lot of good work going into Posix/2 so it would be nice to see it bear fruit some day. > Kind Regards, > knut > -- John **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:41:31 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Posix/2 -> libc In order to try an improve the prospect of porting Unix apps to OS/2 it looks like the way to go would be to incorporate Posix/2 into Innotek's libc, and then this libc package can provide a standard set of headers and libs. If that makes sense, then maybe one of the first things to do would be to adopt a more BSD-like directory structure for /usr/include and change 386 to i386 and get i386 and machine set up the same way as they are in Posix/2... -- John