Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:38:53 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 111 ************************************************** Thursday 20 March 2003 Number 111 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Building httpd - the saga continues : Sohnen-Moe Associates, Inc" 2 Re: Building httpd - the saga continues : Sohnen-Moe Associates, Inc" 3 Re: Building httpd - the saga continues : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:52:03 -0700 (MST) From: "Sohnen-Moe Associates, Inc" Subject: Re: Building httpd - the saga continues -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:10:45 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >You could always try the very latest version of gcc:- > >ftp://ftp.netlabs.org/incoming/gcc-3.2.1-r2 > Henry Sobotka pointed me to the old ld code source. I patched that code and I now have a ld.exe that can search for XXX.a and libXXX.a. If you are interested, I'll send you the code. Speaking of fixes, I have a modification to pdksh v5.2.14 that makes "test -x" more useful. It assumes files without extensions, or with ".sh", are executable. This eliminates some configure kludges that use "test -f" instead. I tried the ld from gcc3.2.1 without success. Also it adds its own problems since it does not output OMF files with .obj any more. The author says "...starting from gcc 3.x series they have changed the architecture a lot. It would cost a lot of patches through the source tree to make gcc choose correctly between .o and .obj extensions as needed." The object files are of the expected type. Only the file extension remains the same. >I would like to try and incorporate this version into ux2bs in the not too >distant future, although it would be nice if this release came with >patches so it could be built using the current build environment. > I have experimented with gcc3.2.1. Aside from the OMF file extension issue I have found no problem with the newer version for C files. (I haven't tried C++ yet.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2 Charset: cp850 wj8DBQE+e21j5z5shEq8TYMRAqEUAKDLTvzrt7Vtc5+hI5ve59pR8GtGKACg+bpT f8bzEqvZOMqYnJhfqh5f2AA= =7RJL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:10:31 -0700 (MST) From: "Sohnen-Moe Associates, Inc" Subject: Re: Building httpd - the saga continues -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:10:45 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:12:22PM -0700, sma at sohnen-moe.com wrote: >> > >> >There is an ld.exe which understands the lib prefix. I can't remember >> >precisely where it comes from - maybe pgcc... >> > >> No, that wasn't the one. At least not the ld.exe in pgcc 2.95.2.... > >You could always try the very latest version of gcc:- > I was wrong in the previous post about this ld.exe. It does indeed find both XXX.a and libXXX.a (it was a PATH problem, not ld). I just tried building httpd v1.3.27 with gcc321 and it worked without a problem. Yay! Now to start changing the configuration to something more suitable.... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2 Charset: cp850 wj8DBQE+e3G35z5shEq8TYMRAoqjAKCBzQAQ5UfNI8DQOCf9uQwoWGBejgCdHBv1 5mDIHzMG4OO/V4s1F88pLws= =JtuJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:10:45 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building httpd - the saga continues On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:12:22PM -0700, sma at sohnen-moe.com wrote: > > > >There is an ld.exe which understands the lib prefix. I can't remember > >precisely where it comes from - maybe pgcc... > > > No, that wasn't the one. At least not the ld.exe in pgcc 2.95.2.... You could always try the very latest version of gcc:- ftp://ftp.netlabs.org/incoming/gcc-3.2.1-r2 I would like to try and incorporate this version into ux2bs inthe not too distant future, although it would be nice if this release came with patches so it could be built using the current build environment. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs