Linux-Development-Sys Digest #286, Volume #6 Fri, 15 Jan 99 15:14:22 EST
Contents:
Re: SIGSEGV exception handler problem (Richard Jones)
Support for HErcules Terminator Beast ( Savage3d chip ) (Francisco Lourenco)
Re: Why no core file? (Andreas Schwab)
60 % OFF Retail on Quality Watches - Distributor and Sample Order Avaiable
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: egcs - where is the official site? (Ashok Aiyar)
Re: - deprecated - why? (Alan Curry)
SysV vs. BSD ps Re: - deprecated - why? (Timothy J. Lee)
Re: disheartened gnome developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: things I'd pay to have developed for Linux... ("Keith G. Murphy")
Re: - deprecated - why? (Emile van Bergen)
Freebsd divert socket equivalent? (Feiyi Wang)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Toon Moene)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Perry Pip)
Re: STREAMS ("Lord Scruff, High Lord")
Strange behaviour in 2.2.0pre7. Netscape freezes locking NFS disk. (Christopher
Neufeld)
Re: Adopting COM? (Wuff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV exception handler problem
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:26:25 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Well, I have written a C program for linux/i386 to handle a SIGSEGV
: exception. In the program, I have :
: - allocated an int ( "a" variable )
: - set the "sig_handler" function as the SIGSEGV exception handler
: - set the "p" int pointer to the 0x1000 address
: and I would like (when the exception is generated) to set p to a,
: and then, to re-execute the instruction which caused the exception.
: But when I launch the program, I got:
: # Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Look at the assembler:
p=(int*)0x1000;
*p=1;
is translated into:
movl $4096,p
movl p,%eax
movl $1,(%eax)
It's the `movl $1,(%eax)' instruction which
is failing and being restarted. Unfortunately,
%eax is 0x1000, and remains that way despite
you fiddling with p, so the instruction fails
a second time after being restarted.
Rich.
--
- Richard Jones. Linux contractor London and SE areas. -
- Very boring homepage at: http://www.annexia.demon.co.uk/ -
- You are currently the 1,991,243,100th visitor to this signature. -
- Original message content Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Jones. -
------------------------------
From: Francisco Lourenco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Support for HErcules Terminator Beast ( Savage3d chip )
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:36:31 +0000
How can I make it work under XFree ? Any comments will be apreciated .
If anyone knows any server for it please let me know .
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thankx in advance.
------------------------------
From: Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why no core file?
Date: 15 Jan 1999 14:04:29 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel R. Grayson) writes:
|> With tcsh it works even better, in that you can increase the limit after
|> decreasing it.
That works with bash as well, if you leave the hard limit alone.
--
Andreas Schwab "And now for something
[EMAIL PROTECTED] completely different"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 60 % OFF Retail on Quality Watches - Distributor and Sample Order Avaiable
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:47:30 PST
Seeking Distributor WORLDWIDE and Sample Orders Avaiable on our UNIDIN
high grade watches made with SWISS ETA 2834-2 calibers ( movements) , 60%
OFF retail price is offered directly from our FACTORY. Five years factory warranty
on all watches we sell to you , we even cover your shipping for repairing on our
durable watches. We are very serious on your order directly from our factory and
be our distibutor WORLDWIDE.
We are a member of NAWCC
See more detail on http://www.unidin.pyar.com
Sincerely yours,
Wayne
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ashok Aiyar)
Subject: Re: egcs - where is the official site?
Date: 15 Jan 1999 13:27:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 15 Jan 1999 09:52:35 GMT,
Mike Dowling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Until recently, we had a local mirror of tsx-11, and it is from this mirror
>that I downloaded egcs-2.90.29. We now no longer have this mirror, and,
>besides, I somehow doubt that this is the most recent release.
>
>Does anybody know where the latest, official version is to be found?
http://egcs.cygnus.com. The latest release is egcs-1.1.1. You may
also wish to look at the Pentium GCC pages -- a pentium optimized
derivative of egcs -- available at http://www.goof.com/pcg
Cheers,
Ashok
--
Ashok Aiyar, Ph.D.
McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research
http://aiyar.cjb.net
------------------------------
Subject: Re: - deprecated - why?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Curry)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:44:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I second that emotion.
>
>Stop whining before you even know what's happening:
>ps isn't switching from BSD to SysV. Rather it's adding SysV while
I know what's happening; I just think that useless bloat is worth whining
about.
One question though: did the Linux community, or any of the *BSD people, have
a vote in deciding which version of ps would be standardized in UNIX98? If
not, then why should we bloat up procps with a bunch of options no one will
ever use just so we can claim to follow this lousy standard which we had no
opportunity to discuss before it was adopted?
ps goes in /bin. My root partition is 12 megabytes in size, and that includes
libc.so.{4,5,6}. So yes, I object to ps bloat, even though it won't affect
the way I use ps.
--
Alan Curry |Declaration of | _../\. ./\.._ ____. ____.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]|bigotries (should| [ | | ] / _> / _>
==============+save some time): | \__/ \__/ \___: \___:
Linux,vim,trn,GPL,zsh,qmail,^H | "Screw you guys, I'm going home" -- Cartman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy J. Lee)
Subject: SysV vs. BSD ps Re: - deprecated - why?
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:57:53 GMT
"Frank T. Lofaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|System V ps is hard to deal with, annoying, and missing key
|functionality. The BSD ps is so much nicer. ps on Solaris can cause
|headaches.
On Solaris, use /usr/ucb/ps to get BSD ps behavior.
AIX ps without the - takes BSD options; with the - takes SysV
options. The man page on Linux ps seems to imply that Linux
ps will take that approach in the future.
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:15:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:47:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >I wrote C bindings for Qt. Do you know how many people downloaded them in
> >> >the first month? 20.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Writing a C binding to a C++ toolkit is kinda going backwards. I see C as
> >> a mid-level langauge. It's a good platform independant abstraction of
> >> assembly, perhaps as low level as such a platform independant abstraction
> >> can be. It's a common focal point to bind higher level languages to. Take
> >> a look at
> >
> >And how is that related to whatever I said? I was just noting that
> >there is really very little interest on coding in C instead of C++.
> >
>
> Oh. Really? How does the fact that no one wants to use a C "extension" to
> a C++ toolkit indicate that there is very little interest on coding in C
> instead of C++.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought "instead" meant "in replacement of".
A C binding for that C++ toolkit does give a way to code in C instead of C++
doesn't it?
> Did it ever occur to you that people who want to program
> in C are busy coding away in native C toolkits, i.e GTK+??
Yup, it has. Then I discarded it as just something that may or may not be true
and of which I have no clue about, unlike what I did mention.
> That fact that you constantly make such derangements of logic in order to
> make your points has made me realize it's not worth my time debating you
> at all.
Whatever floats your boat.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: things I'd pay to have developed for Linux...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:57:56 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phil Howard wrote:
>
> On 11 Jan 1999 07:27:34 -0600 Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> | - Disks are recognized not by SCSI ID's or whatever but by a VG
> | signature. LV's contain a certain amount of metadata as well, so
> | /etc/fstab is not really needed to figure out what partitions mean
> | what.
>
> A hack I've used is to create a symlink called "MOUNT" in the root
> directory of each partition. My "smart mounter" goes through all the
> partitions, first mounting read/only to take a peek at "MOUNT" and
> then mounts the partition as specified. Thus if the partitions get
> moved around due to SCSI ID to device name relationship shifting, it
> won't affect what data shows up where.
Hmmm. Too bad you can't (apparently) easily (at all?) get hold of the
volume label from Linux. Then you could do it kind of like VMS does
it: if you have a disk label "FINANCIAL", the mount automatically
creates a logical called "DISK$FINANCIAL:", pointing to the appropriate
disk. /disk$financial, anyone? Seems like it would be easy to even
change mount to do this, *if* you could get hold of that volume label...
------------------------------
From: Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: - deprecated - why?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:04:05 +0100
Toon Moene wrote:
>
> > No, there was no vote for these communities. Much as these communities
> > do not have direct representation with X11. And much as there has been
> > limited representation at IETF. And not too much at W3C.
>
> Indeed, and we do not need to.
>
> We can just embrace and enhance these standards/protocols.
>
> :-) :-)
Grin... You wouldn't want Linux winding up _that_ road, now do you?
P.S. Read the halloween documents lately? I thought it was Embrace,
Extend & Extinguish!
--
M.vr.gr. / Best regards,
Emile van Bergen (preferred e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
This e-mail message is 100% electronically degradeable and produced
on a GNU/Linux system.
------------------------------
From: Feiyi Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.linux.networking
Subject: Freebsd divert socket equivalent?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:52:55 -0500
Hi, all
We are porting an application from FreeBSD to Linux
platform. One difficulty we run into is that it doesn't have
"divert socket" support (excuse me, if I am missing
something here). So called divert socket is nothing more
than intercepting/reinjecting the incoming and outgoing
datastream on the IP layer. Basically, under FreeBSD, we use
"readIncoming", "writeIncoming", "readOutgoing",
"writeOutgoing" to accomplish this task: the following
pictures show the outgoing packet process
|
|
|
----> read the IP packet, do the
checking/modification
<---- inject the IP packet back
|
|
|
V outgoing stream
I've seen one or two hacks to the Linux kernel (at netlink
layer) to achive the same goal, however, it needs patching
and rebuilding the kernel, and patch again when the kernel
upgrade. I'd very much like to see something suchlike
"loadable module" support for it, or is it be possible? And
it is already existed somewhere? I appreciate any info/help
from the communitiy.
TIA
/Feiyi
------------------------------
From: Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:23:43 +0100
Christopher B. Browne wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:44:57 +0100, Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> ><speculation mode=heretic>
> >It might be that in the (perhaps not even so) long run we do not _need_
> >the GPL anymore to protect software from hoarding.
> ></speculation>
>
> <speculation mode=alternative>
> X11R6 is a piece of software that is of value to the free software
> world, but of decreasing value to the vendors that have been
> supporting it over the last number of years.
But if that really was so clearly the case, why *did* The Open Group try
to hoard the sources (supplied by developers all over the world) ?
Apparently _they_ thought they could make some money out of that ... and
they have been proven wrong.
Of course (even though I didn't state it in my previous post) I *do*
have an idea why this move by TOG failed: They didn't have any model of
cooperation that would keep the developers interested in contributing
code.
To me that was not new - it was exactly the reason why the EGCS project
succeeded against dwindling interest in contributing to GCC: For the
developers, it was far easier to contribute to EGCS than to GCC.
So it's those who manage to interest developers who will "control" what
happens with an (initially) open source project, not those who will come
up with the most clever licensing scheme.
[ Note that this view holds *now*, at the end of the nineties - of
course the GPL was a necessity in the first ten/fifteen years of the
GNU project; just think of Objective C as an example where NeXT
almost got away with it ]
--
Toon Moene ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286
g77 Support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; egcs: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:22:10 GMT
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:11:47 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
>
>I don't think the term "item" is defined clearly enough for legal
>purposes, whether I'm right or wrong. I think TT needs to have more
>lawyers work on their license because it has what appears to be holes
>in it, where the GPL reads watertight to me. The LGPL is a hack off
>the GPL with a couple minor modifications, and I'm not sure there
>aren't holes in it too.
If you are unsure of the terms you can always email them and ask before
using the Qt lib. I am sure they will reply.
The sad thing about lawers is that they, on average, make more than
programmers do. I hate to see the benifit of programmers hard work eaten
up by legal fees.
>Frankly it is not clear to me what "problem" TT is attempting to solve
>with their license, since the GPL satisfies their desire to sell
>commercial licenses to Qt if companies are going to use it in
>commercial products. I'd be interested to learn the answer.
It's quite clear to me. The problem has to do with modifications. When you
license your code under the GPL people can modify it, fork it, etc. etc.
as long as the modifications are also GPL'd. But when you choose to
additionally issue your GPL'd code under some other license, you can't
include the GPL'd contributions of others without their consent, because
they own their contributions, not you. The patch clause in the QPL
specifically allows TT to use the patches of others in their commercial
version. GPL would not allow that. And that specifically is one thing I
don't like about QPL. They intend to use the free contributions of others
in their commercial product.
>Personally, though I expect to use the GPL in the future, I don't
>think that I'd ever use the LGPL or the QPL precisely because in
>addition to being less "watertight" in their wording (imo) they do
>allow you to link closed-source code. Personally I think that is
>silliness; the only reason to write closed-source code that I have
>come up with is for maximum profit, and if someone is looking to do
>that with my code, I'll be glad to sell them a proprietary license
>assuming I choose to do business with them. I wouldn't have that
>choice with either LGPL or QPL; any company including the dreaded
>Microsoft could use my code in their proprietary applications without
>so much as a "by your leave", much less a fat check. Free code in
>free code is a good thing, free code in proprietary products is plain
>stupidity imo, better for proprietary products to pay for free code
>development. And anybody whose initials are BG is likely to pay
>through the nose.
The intent of the LGPL, AFAIK was to be a bit of a trade off to gain more
commercial acceptance of free software. If it weren't for LGPL'd c
libraries, there would be no Word Perfect, Star Office, Oracle, Informix,
etc. etc. for Linux. But the grain of LGPL, is, I believe, against the
true values of the FSF for pretty much the reasons you describe above.
Regards,
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Lord Scruff, High Lord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: STREAMS
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:59:06 +0000
Are we talking network streams like as in TCPIP? If so, Linux
*kinda* supports streams as I recall . . . at least that's what I used for
my systems programming project last year to get what I got going to
actually go :O)
Lord Scruff, High Lord of the Dark Army
Martin Recktenwald wrote:
> "Dan McNaul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Does anyone know if the Linux kernal supports the STREAMS sub-system?
> >
> No. AFAIK there's a STREAMS package for Linux available from somewhere
> else - try searching the web for Linux+STREAMS.
>
> Martin.
------------------------------
Subject: Strange behaviour in 2.2.0pre7. Netscape freezes locking NFS disk.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Neufeld)
Date: 14 Jan 1999 15:18:41 -0500
I'm trying out the 2.2.0pre* series on one of my office computers, a
dual PPro 200. Right now I have 2.2.0pre6 and 2.2.0pre7, SMP kernels. I
notice that software-commanded reboots still don't work, I have to hit
the reset button after commanding "shutdown -r".
Something else seems to have broken, though, in Netscape 4.5. If you
start netscape, then call for the "composer" from the menu, netscape
freezes, and seems to be having trouble with file locks. It did not do
this with v2.0.33 but does it with both pre6 and pre7. I realize that
this is very possibly a bug in netscape, but I offer it up here just in
case it isn't.
A strace shows that netscape is looping, possibly forever, within:
gettimeofday({916344699, 562021}, NULL) = 0
sigreturn() = ? (mask now [])
fcntl(23, F_GETLK, {type=F_RDLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0, pid=0}) = ?
ERESTARTSYS (To be restarted)
--- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) ---
File descriptor 23 is ~/.netscape/custom.dic, which is mounted from an
NFS disk served by another Linux box running 2.0.33 and Universal NFS
Server 2.2beta37.
When the offending file is copied to the local disk and symlinked in
the NFS directory, the problem goes away.
--
Christopher Neufeld - Not a graduate student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home page: http://caliban.physics.utoronto.ca/neufeld/Intro.html
"Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wuff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Adopting COM?
Date: 13 Jan 1999 23:43:35 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
B. Browne) writes:
<snip>
>At this point, *all* the ORBs for Linux are too immature to be treated
>as critical system facilities for anything that's critical. GNOME code
>depends on ORBit; both sides are sufficiently "alpha" in nature that
>the ORB isn't substantially less reliable than the rest of GNOME.
>As GNOME matures, the robustness of ORBit will become more important.
>(Hopefully with increasing ORBit maturity coming to support this need.)
Musssttt ... not.... make... joke ... about... gggnnnnnhhhh
'stable orbit'
Damn ;-)
Vin
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
