Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 00:04:18 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 470 ************************************************** Tuesday 07 December 2004 Number 470 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Updating config.guess : Henry Sobotka 2 gethostid libsocket vs libc : Dave Yeo" 3 Re: Updating config.guess : Yuri Dario" 4 Python built with gcc 3.3.5 ? : John Poltorak 5 Re: Updating config.guess : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 6 Re: Updating config.guess : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:17:25 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Updating config.guess What do people think of the idea of updating config.guess to distinguish between EMX and INNOTEK LIBC? With the patch below, it spits out either "i386-pc-os2-innotek" or "i386-pc-os2-emx" depending on which compiler is used. h~ -----PATCH (based on autoconf-2.49c/config.guess dated 1-24-01)----- 1197,1200c1197,1209 < # If we were able to find `uname', then EMX Unix compatibility < # is probably installed. < echo ${UNAME_MACHINE}-pc-os2-emx < exit 0 ;; --- > # Distinguish between EMX and INNOTEK LIBC; default to EMX > cat >$dummy.c < #include /* for printf() prototype */ > int main (int argc, char *argv[]) { > #ifdef __INNOTEK_LIBC__ > printf("%s-pc-os2-innotek\n", argv[1]); > #else > printf("%s-pc-os2-emx\n", argv[1]); > #endif > return 0; > } > EOF > $CC_FOR_BUILD $dummy.c -o $dummy.exe 2>/dev/null && ./$dummy "${UNAME_MACHINE}" && rm $dummy.c $dummy.exe && exit 0 ;; **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:15:16 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: gethostid libsocket vs libc Hi, gethostid is currently in libsocket where configure scripts miss it since it is declared in unistd.h. Seems that anything declared in unistd.h should be implemented in libc or so I have been informed. Dave **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:02:49 +0100 (CET) From: "Yuri Dario" Subject: Re: Updating config.guess Hi, >What do people think of the idea of updating config.guess to distinguish >between EMX and INNOTEK LIBC? With the patch below, it spits out either >"i386-pc-os2-innotek" or "i386-pc-os2-emx" depending on which compiler why not to recompile uname and change the output string? Bye, Yuri Dario /* * member of TeamOS/2 - Italy * http://www.os2power.com/yuri * http://www.teamos2.it */ **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:09:49 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Python built with gcc 3.3.5 ? Has there been any progress on building Python with gcc 3.3.5? -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:19:24 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Updating config.guess Henry Sobotka schrieb: > What do people think of the idea of updating config.guess > to distinguish > between EMX and INNOTEK LIBC? With the patch below, it > spits out either > "i386-pc-os2-innotek" or "i386-pc-os2-emx" depending on > which compiler > is used. Is that difference really relevant on the configure level? Configure tends to test for lots of individual functions anyway, so I assume that handles anything which is available for only one of the two compilers anyway... And binaries available/to be used are the same anyway, aren't they? > -----PATCH (based on autoconf-2.49c/config.guess dated > 1-24-01)----- > (snipp) > > $CC_FOR_BUILD $dummy.c -o $dummy.exe 2>/dev/null && > ./$dummy > "${UNAME_MACHINE}" && rm $dummy.c $dummy.exe && exit 0 > ;; I guess autoconf maintainers won't like a patch that actually calls a compiler and generated binary from within config.guess. So, if there really is a need to differentiate between the two environments, it might in fact be easier to get stuff integrated into standard distribution if we delegate this to uname. Regards, Stefan **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:29:08 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Updating config.guess Yuri Dario schrieb: > > why not to recompile uname and change the output string? Seemingly good idea - I got caught by your trap: [C:\]uname --help GNU uname, sh-utils 1.12 Usage: uname [OPTION]... -a, --all print all information -m, --machine print the machine (hardware) type -n, --nodename print the machine's network node hostname -r, --release print the operating system release -s, --sysname print the operating system name -v print the operating system version --help display this help and exit --version output version information and exit Without any OPTION, assume -s. [C:\]uname -a OS/2 red 2 2.45 i386 i.e. there's no place to put either EMX or Innotek in the output of a standard uname implementation, AFAICS. Regards, Stefan