Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:04:05 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 322 ************************************************** Monday 22 March 2004 Number 322 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : Stefan Neis 2 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : John Poltorak 3 Testing Sleepycat DB : John Poltorak 4 Re: Posix/2 -> libc : Knut St. Osmundsen" 5 Re: Posix/2 -> libc : John Poltorak 6 *BSD headers : John Poltorak 7 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : Stefan Neis 8 Re: *BSD headers : Stefan Neis 9 dllar : Stefan Neis 10 Re: *BSD headers : John Merryweather Cooper 11 Re: *BSD headers : John Merryweather Cooper 12 Re: Testing Sleepycat DB : Henry Sobotka 13 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : John Poltorak 14 Re: *BSD headers : John Poltorak 15 Re: *BSD headers : Tobias Huerlimann" 16 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : Stefan Neis 17 Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 : John Poltorak 18 Re: *BSD headers : John Poltorak 19 Ping : Dave Saville" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:49:40 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > I don't think it builds with v2.8.1 anylonger. If it does, that is > surely only for adventurous people My last experience is with building gcc-2.95 on Solaris, but AFAIK, gcc is written in plain C code, so it should build with v2.8.1 or even older versions. Anyway, the standard build procedure on all platforms is (or was at the time of 2.95) compiling the C compiler with whatever compiler exists and then build everything (including rebuilding the C compiler) with that compiler ... > As for replacing Posix/2, I like the idea. :-) > I'm checking out the tree now. Actually header files are typically from Open- or FreeBSD, implementation is taken from there as well for quite some functions (math library, getopt, similar high level stuff), other functions have been contributed by various people. In general, stuff tends to be relatively "old", though, so whatever is inspired by *BSD in your libc is going to be more up-to-date than whatever you find in Posix/2. Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:30:52 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 06:49:40PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > Actually header files are typically from Open- or FreeBSD, I've always failed to appreciate the difference between Open, Free and Net BSD, but rather than someone trying to explain the difference can you suggest which should be the definitive distro for OS/2's posix header files? > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:44:19 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Testing Sleepycat DB I've attempted to build Sleepycat DB v4.1.25 and it appears to have been built and installed without any errors, although I would like to test it out. Can anyone suggest how I can do that? -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:50:31 +0100 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: Posix/2 -> libc John Poltorak wrote: > 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... Renaming 386? It shouldn't really matter, it's just usr/include/machine and noone is really including anything directly from there AFAIK. I'm a bit reluctant to mess with it because it'll leave an ugly empty directory in CVS and make checking old revisions more painful. (Must say that CVS sucks badly in matters of restructuring sources.) By the way, if there is _need_ for it, it's possible I can convince my boss to let me setup a readonly CVS mirror of LIBC, Binutils, and GCC on netlabs. The question is if there is an actual need for it. Kind Regards, knut **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:55:20 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Posix/2 -> libc On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:50:31PM +0100, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > 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... > > > Renaming 386? It shouldn't really matter, it's just usr/include/machine > and noone is really including anything directly from there AFAIK. > > I'm a bit reluctant to mess with it because it'll leave an ugly empty > directory in CVS and make checking old revisions more painful. (Must say > that CVS sucks badly in matters of restructuring sources.) Well, maybe create a i386 and move the relevant files in. If i386 is the standard on *BSD, maybe we should have it too... > By the way, if there is _need_ for it, it's possible I can convince my > boss to let me setup a readonly CVS mirror of LIBC, Binutils, and GCC on > netlabs. The question is if there is an actual need for it. I guess you might call standardisation a justification... > Kind Regards, > knut > -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:01:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: *BSD headers Can anyone tell me where to download the standard *BSD headers? I thought they might be here:- ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/include/ but there are only a few... Where are the rest? -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:08:17 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > Actually header files are typically from Open- or FreeBSD, > > I've always failed to appreciate the difference between Open, Free and Net > BSD, but rather than someone trying to explain the difference can you > suggest which should be the definitive distro for OS/2's posix header > files? IIRC, FreeBSD aims to be at the "bleeding edge" of new features and (Intel) hardware support, OpenBSD is a bit more conservative and NetBSD aims at porting to even more (non-Intel) platforms, so my choice would be OpenBSD (we hardly have any benefit for NetBSD's additions being limited to x86 anyway, so why have additional #ifdef's in the header), but if I need some new features not yet adopted by OpenBSD, I feel free to go and luck at FreeBSD - for the "stable" code, the difference typically is limited to the CVS header anyway. Regards, Stefan **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:13:50 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: *BSD headers On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > Can anyone tell me where to download the standard *BSD headers? > > I thought they might be here:- > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/include/ I've been using CVS to grab them from their CVS server /cvs/src/include on one of the OpenBSD mirrors and/or /home/ncvs/src/include on the FReeBSD mirrors seem to do nicely. Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:33:30 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: dllar Hi, I'm polishing "dllar.sh" a bit for the needs of wxWindows where we are going to use it as the "universal" tool to build DLLs. Particularly, there are two new features we are going to add: - create DLL and import library with different names ("short" 8.3 name for the DLL, descriptive name for the import library, the latter going to be the same as on other platforms, i.e. something like e.g. wx_base_net-2.5.a). - create DLL only, no import library at all (for "plugins" which are supposed to be never be linked into an executable but always dynamically loaded). Any strong preferences for the syntax to be used? Something like (default describes what's to happen if no import-lib-name is specified): A) -o DLL-name -import import-lib-name (with a default of DLL-name [1]) -o DLL-name -import none B) -o DLL-name -import import-lib-name (with a default of none, though that's incompatible with the existing cmd file) C) -o DLL-name -Wl,--outlib,import-lib-name (with a default of none, inspired by cygwin) D) -o DLL-name -Wl,--outlib,import-lib-name (with a default of DLL-name [1], i.e. compatible with the existing cmd version, but different from cygwin, again requiring something like for A): -o DLL-name -Wl,--outlib,none. E) other names for the "magic" flag? What do you think? Next question: We support both a.out and OMF mode in that script, what kind of import libs would you expect? Always produce both a.out and OMF libs? Produce only a.out libs (Newest gcc can generate OMF on the fly, if needed (-though not always, linking to "import.a" instead of -limport fails...))? Produce a.out libs in a.out compiles and OMF libs in OMF compiles? Yet another strategy? Regards, Stefan [1] What that really means if of course: if the the DLL is name somethng.dll, the import lib is going to be named somethng.a [.lib]. **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:23:44 -0800 From: John Merryweather Cooper Subject: Re: *BSD headers For access to the CVS by web, try http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/include/ The full hierarchy is available. By hooking up with CVS in the usual way, you can fetch all of them. jmc John Poltorak wrote: > Can anyone tell me where to download the standard *BSD headers? > > I thought they might be here:- > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/include/ > > but there are only a few... > > Where are the rest? > > **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:23:44 -0800 From: John Merryweather Cooper Subject: Re: *BSD headers For access to the CVS by web, try http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/include/ The full hierarchy is available. By hooking up with CVS in the usual way, you can fetch all of them. jmc John Poltorak wrote: > Can anyone tell me where to download the standard *BSD headers? > > I thought they might be here:- > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/include/ > > but there are only a few... > > Where are the rest? > > **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:37:15 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Testing Sleepycat DB John Poltorak wrote: > > I've attempted to build Sleepycat DB v4.1.25 and it appears to have been > built and installed without any errors, although I would like to test it > out. Can anyone suggest how I can do that? Isn't there a "make test" or some such? Last time I built Sleepycat was seven years ago, and I recall problems with the tests because they used Tcl (the highest version available for OS/2 at the time wasn't good enough, so I had to roll my own) and IIRC Perl as well. There was a substantial testsuite back then, and I expect it would have grown even bigger by now. h~ -- Free software, free minds. **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:16:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:08:17PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > IIRC, FreeBSD aims to be at the "bleeding edge" of new features and > (Intel) hardware support, OpenBSD is a bit more conservative and NetBSD > aims at porting to even more (non-Intel) platforms, so my choice would > be OpenBSD (we hardly have any benefit for NetBSD's additions being > limited to x86 anyway, so why have additional #ifdef's in the header), > but if I need some new features not yet adopted by OpenBSD, I feel free to > go and luck at FreeBSD - for the "stable" code, the difference typically > is limited to the CVS header anyway. Ah... Now looking at the headers in Innotek libc, I see a different philosophy - they appear to be FreeBSD based. Personally, I would prefer a slightly more conservative approach, but maybe it is a little late for that... > Regards, > Stefan > -- John **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:31:42 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: *BSD headers On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 05:23:44PM -0800, John Merryweather Cooper wrote: > For access to the CVS by web, try > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/include/ > > The full hierarchy is available. By hooking up with CVS in the usual > way, you can fetch all of them. The directory structure appears strange to me... There are quite a lot of headers missing under src/include, but many are to be found under src/sys/sys, src/sys/netinet etc although I can't locate anything related to what we usually have as include/machine. Any idea where that can be found, or what it is derived from? I've also found that it is easier for me to grab headers using RSYNC rather than CVS. > jmc > > John Poltorak wrote: > > Can anyone tell me where to download the standard *BSD headers? > > > > I thought they might be here:- > > > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/include/ > > > > but there are only a few... > > > > Where are the rest? > > > > > > -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:38:44 +0100 (MEZ) From: "Tobias Huerlimann" Subject: Re: *BSD headers -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:01:18 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > Can anyone tell me where to download the standard *BSD headers? > > I thought they might be here:- > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/include/ > > but there are only a few... > > Where are the rest? Distributed over the src/sys/ hierarchy. For example: ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/sys/ (gets copied to /usr/include/sys/ during installation) i386 specific headers: ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/arch/i386/include (-> /usr/include/i386/) Networking: ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/net/ (-> /usr/include/net/) ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/netinet/ (-> /usr/include/netinet/) .... Tobias -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (OS/2) iD8DBQFAXt5UyM3Xd8YJ6q0RAqaCAJ4q3DGBkNSet6wbiWk9Flr8wsYKyACghh2X yi1SF2tjZqmZ8vwJyO9N5xk= =oC2d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:36:12 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > Ah... Now looking at the headers in Innotek libc, I see a different > philosophy - they appear to be FreeBSD based. Personally, I would prefer > a slightly more conservative approach, but maybe it is a little late for > that... Well, it's likely to give us a slightly more complete libc and as long as there is someone actively maintaining it, that's an advantage which IMHO is more important than the disadvantage of slightly increasing the chance to have some small bug in some feature that's newly added in a certain release... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:40:47 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building gcc 3.2.2 On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:36:12PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > > Ah... Now looking at the headers in Innotek libc, I see a different > > philosophy - they appear to be FreeBSD based. Personally, I would prefer > > a slightly more conservative approach, but maybe it is a little late for > > that... > > Well, it's likely to give us a slightly more complete libc and as long as > there is someone actively maintaining it, that's an advantage which IMHO > is more important than the disadvantage of slightly increasing the chance > to have some small bug in some feature that's newly added in a certain > release... So you think FreeBSD should be the definitive guide for libc ? > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:03:04 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: *BSD headers On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:38:44PM +0100, Tobias Huerlimann wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:01:18 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me where to download the standard *BSD headers? > > > > I thought they might be here:- > > > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/include/ > > > > but there are only a few... > > > > Where are the rest? > > Distributed over the src/sys/ hierarchy. For example: > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/sys/ > (gets copied to /usr/include/sys/ during installation) > > i386 specific headers: > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/arch/i386/include > (-> /usr/include/i386/) > > Networking: > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/net/ > (-> /usr/include/net/) > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/sys/netinet/ > (-> /usr/include/netinet/) I managed to find those eventually, although I still can't find anything equivalent to include/machine Looking at FreeBSD, it isn't immediately obvious where the equivalent directories are. Can someone give me a hint? > ... > > Tobias -- John **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:23:34 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Ping Anyone got the source of ping - that will compile under OS/2? The original source code won't compile. TIA -- Regards Dave Saville