Linux-Development-Sys Digest #562, Volume #6 Thu, 1 Apr 99 20:14:17 EST
Contents:
Re: EGCS and Stack? (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC. (Peter Steiner)
Re: polling an interface at 12 KHz (Michel Dagenais)
Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC. (Peter Steiner)
Re: development features ("Selious")
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Shimpei Yamashita)
Re: Outlook? (John Burton)
Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (bob@nospam)
Demonizing Red Hat (was: CodeWarrior for Red Hat Linux) (Martin Maney)
Re: Linux from the Ground Up (Martin Maney)
Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (Craig Kelley)
Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...) (Tim Triemstra)
Device Driver for Dell Powervault/Clarion disk arrays ("Jeff & Barbara Wallace")
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Enkidu)
Undefined referenced to '__bzero' (John Florian)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: EGCS and Stack?
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:39:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Burton wrote:
>Andreas Jusek wrote:
>>
>> Hallo all,
>>
>> We have a problem with EGCS-1.1.2 and the size of the stack in a C++-program.
>> Does anyone know, how egcs g++ handle the stacksize? Is it possible to
>> manipulate the size of the stack - especially to increse it?
>
>I don't think the size of the stack is determined by the compiler. I
>seem to
>be able to use many megabytes of stack space with little problem.
ulimit -a ... the default size is 8 meg.
Cheers,
Juergen
--
\ Real name : J�rgen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
\ Phone Private : +44 181-332 0750 \ /
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:47:03 +0200
In article <7doa75$da4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>Last time I checked, rhide for Linux was still pretty buggy -- too buggy
>to make it worth using, IMHO.
The version 1.4.7 is stable (at least here). It still doesn't like
dealing with terminals so it needs to run on a console using
/dev/vcsaxx.
Peter
--
_ x ___
/ \_/_\_ /,--' [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Steiner)
\/>'~~~~//
\_____/ signature V0.2 alpha
------------------------------
Subject: Re: polling an interface at 12 KHz
From: Michel Dagenais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 18:39:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson) writes:
> [Daniel Derksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > I have to devellop an application which polls a hardware-interface at
> > 12 KHz and I was thinking about develloping this application on
> > Linux. I'm not really into Linux yet so before I get into it, could
> > someone give me an indication on whether I have a chance of achieving
> > this ?
>
> Hmmm, you need to *poll* that often? For that kind of resolution you
> pretty much *have* to be in kernel space, and I'm guessing you'll still
> have some trouble. Much may depend on how hard of realtime you need,
> i.e. how much occasional latency wouldn't bother you.
In general anything around or faster than 100Hz is problematic since the
kernel gets interrupted for scheduling at that frequency. You then have
to go for real-time Linux which adds a hard real time scheduling layer.
However, the real time clock may be programmed to generate interrupts and
works quite well up to around 1KHz (/usr/src/linux/Documentation/rtc.txt),
which may save you the trouble of setting up RT-Linux.
--
Prof. Michel Dagenais http://m3.polymtl.ca/dagenais
D�partement de g�nie informatique [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ecole Polytechnique de Montr�al tel: (514) 340-4711 ext.4029
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:47:04 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Pace wrote:
>I just downloaded CodeCrusader and it looks very stable
>and useful:
Yes, It really *looks* useful. However:
- it's so slow
- using PgUp/PgDn doesn't move the cursor which is very annoying
because it efficiently prevents one from editing. After pressing one
of these keys the cursor is outside the visible area. So if you want
to go down 500 lines you have to move the cursor down 500 times. And
as I said the editor (and especilaay scrolling) is so slow.
- keyboard accelerators are not 'Borland style'. You might not expect
this to be a problem at all, but it is for me. That really should be
customizeable.
- The layout of some windows is not very good. There are many text
fields that can show about 10-15 characters while you are supposed to
enter lines of 70-80 characters of nice regexp's. That simply doesn't
work.
Peter
--
_ x ___
/ \_/_\_ /,--' [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Steiner)
\/>'~~~~//
\_____/ signature V0.2 alpha
------------------------------
From: "Selious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: development features
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 00:47:52 +0200
>I would like to find out
>what database capabilites exist for interfacing with
>Windows ODBC.
>
Ehh, make it simpel...
make a small sockets ODBC gateway server to run on win32
This gateway should allow redirection of ODBC commands. I have been thinking
about something like this !! Simply copy command parameters.
Selious
------------------------------
From: Shimpei Yamashita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:21:18 +0100
Enkidu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> there is a pristine source in the source rpm along with
>> redhat's patches which are distinct diff files. you can still
>> apply your own patches. you can remove the redhat patches.
>>
>Indeed you can, unless you are prepared to take the risk of losing
>some feature in the process!
Like what? Creating RPM packages out of your modification? That
can be arranged by editing the .spec file that gets installed when
you unpack a .src.rpm file. Comment out the patches that you don't
want applied, add in patches you do want applied.
Really, I don't see what "feature" you are missing here.
>You could, of course, look at the
>diffs, look at your patch (which you may have got elsewhere), and
>try to figure out what will fit and what you want and what will
>really happen. Great fun, I'm sure.
I fail to see your point. If you derive no joy out of tinkering with
source code, what are you doing with the pristine source code in the
first place? As for reconciling various patches from various different
people, that's something you will *always* have to deal with, whether
you run RedHat or not.
>> yes there are. no one makes you use redhat. if you do not
>> care for redhat, do not use it. redhat does have actual
>> problems. i challenge you to find them and not just make up
>> random lies.
>>
>I'm sorry that I am nor a follower of the One True Red Hat
>religion. I challenge you to point out where I lied. For what it
>is worth, I've not had any problem with my copy of Redhat. It's
>pretty neat so long as you don't mind being led by the nose.
Nobody says you *have* to use RPM. You can do rm -rf /var/lib/rpm
immediately after the installation is over, and never have to deal
with the rpm command ever again. Of course, this means you get to
hand-compile every new and updated software in the future, and you can
forget about updating to future versions of RedHat without a complete
re-install, but since you don't seem to like packaging....
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www.submm.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
------------------------------
From: John Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Outlook?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:19:36 +0100
Igor Zlatkovic wrote:
>
> Can you figure out what the MAPI transport provider is? Messaging that you get
> installed with NT and 95 cannot provide any kind of mail transfer alone, it
> needs some kind of transport for this.
>
> If you use Microsoft Mail, forget everything. I don�t know of a Linux mail
> client that understands that. Even in Windows world, this is pretty outdated
> any almost noone uses it anymore. As of my knowledge, the format of those stuff
> you see on the server is not publicly available. However, I must admit that I
> never really looked into this. But hey, don�t worry. If you can send an email
> to someone in the internet, chances are that you are not using MS Mail.
>
> If you have any other transport provider configured, there is a chance to help
> you. Choose tools/services in your messaging client menu. A dialog box will
> appear and you will see a list all configured services. Some of them are store
> providers, some are address book providers, some are transport providers. Just
> list them all and post the list as a reply here.
Thanks for the reply. I'll take a look tomrrow when I get back to work
but I
fear that it might be microsoft mail. We originally just had a few
clients
connected together using the free stuff that came with windows. It just
grew
a bit and now we are mostly using NT but I think the mail system is the
same.
I think we have some sort of separate software which acts as a gateway
to
the internet for messages.
------------------------------
From: bob@nospam
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
Date: 1 Apr 1999 13:58:59 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>I know there is already the Linux LSB project underway to hopefully solve
>some of these problems. However I think we need something more
>definitative than this.
Why not work within LSB project, instead of comming up with yet
another project? you are making the same mistake that linux is
making.
>Since there will be differences between the different uses for Linux, we
>should define multiple variations of the Linux 2000 platform.
silly idea. This is something MS will do. this is just more confusion
and more time wasting.
keep things simple. A distribution should have everthing in it, and
less the user decides what they want or not want, not you. You can
give documentations on what is in each package (and some distro' allready
do that) and user can decide what to install or not.
>
>The important thing here is that then software vendors can say that they
>support the 'Linux 2000 Platform' as opposed to a particular Linux
>distribution.
Yes. We need ONE Gnu-linux, not 25 of them.
But get rid of this silly idea of having a Linux workstation vs Linux server
vs Linux personal vs. Linux etc.. stuff.
Bob
------------------------------
From: Martin Maney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Demonizing Red Hat (was: CodeWarrior for Red Hat Linux)
Date: 31 Mar 1999 18:06:53 GMT
Adam P. Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hear, Hear! I've noticed this trend in several of RedHat's
> announcements lately, referring to "the Red Hat Linux operating
> system" as if it's a separate operating system from other
> distributions.
Oh please, get a grip. "Red Hat Linux" is no more or less than the name of
the distribution, just like "Debian GNU/Linux", to mention the distro I
prefer for most applications, or "SuSE Linux" or "TurboLinux", or any of the
others. (I don't recall if Slackware generally uses "Slackware Linux" -
it's been a good long time since I used it, and we always just called it
"Slackware", or just "Slack" in conversation.)
And of course it is true that the distributions are somewhat different from
each other. I understand that you can unpack and install an RPM under
Debian, for example, but I've never tried it myself. Debian's package
management is a large part of the reason I prefer it to Red Hat, which I
have installed and used on a "testbed" machine, or Slackware, which I got
tired of upgrading by reinstalling (it was easier that way).
> It seems like an intentionally dishonest way to make
> people feel like they better use RedHat if they want to be compatible
> with all this new stuff coming out. Experienced Linux users will
I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I would have said it looked
like an attempt to clearly label the distribution that Red Hat sells and
supports. Doing so would help to prevent unexpected pain if someone with,
say, a SuSE system bought a package that did happen to depend on some
idiosyncrasy of Red Hat - an unusual library, perhaps, or a certain
directory structure. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds there would
be less unnecessary differences between distros - but if there weren't some
differences what would be the point of having more than one? Seems to me we
all benefit a lot from the variety: I would hate to be stick using Slackware
or Red Hat, myself. I could get by, but I have no irrational desire to have
to build a few hundred arge packages from source and manage their
installation, configuration, and (especially) upgrading by hand. In fact,
if I had to spend that much time on managing the system instead of getting
what I consider useful work done... why, I might as well be using Windows,
complete with annual preventitive reinstalls and frequent reboots - I'd
still come out ahead on time lost to the system.
I am very, VERY glad I don't have to do that! <big grin>
------------------------------
From: Martin Maney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from the Ground Up
Date: 31 Mar 1999 19:15:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't necessarily want to build from the sources, I just want to install
> Linux, add XFree86, and the minimum programs I want rather than all of Red
> Hat's selections. I have been using Red Hat since 5.0 and now want to explore
> how the OS is set up and works for myself.
You can do this using... Red Hat!
Okay, I can't tell you just which keystrokes on just which screens, but it's
not all that hard to find the facility to pick & choose among the packages
one by one using the Red Hat installer. At least it wasn't back when I was
doing trial installs of several different distros on a spare machine rather
more than a year ago. I think that was RH 5.0, but maybe it was 4.x; in any
event, I imagine the facility is still there.
OTOH, if you prefer that level of control to Red Hat's default "pick your
category and let us do it all for you" approach, you might want to try
Debian. Mind you, dealing with every package one by one may not seem like
such a great idea when dselect presents you with some 2500 packages to pick
and choose amongst! :-)
I don't think there's really any way to avoid using a distro other than
building everything from source - and that would have to include doing at
least some of that building on a second, already running machine to get the
pieces you need to compile the rest. And really, you can learn how things
fit together and how to manage them on your already-running Red Hat system
perfectly well. Although they provide "simple" GUI-based management, you
can skip all that... although the underlying system might be setup in a way
that's better suited for those tools than for tweaking by hand. If that's a
problem you should look at Debian, which has little in the way of fancy
admin tools (no sane person could call dselect "fancy") and hence, perhaps,
a more admin-with-editor friendly arrangement. I certainly find it so.
Luck!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01 Apr 1999 16:42:13 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kendall Bennett) writes:
> The following are my first two (very bare) suggestions to begin with:
>
> Linux 2000 Workstation
> ----------------------
>
> Base components:
> . Standard locations for all configuration files!
Never going to happen. BSD vs. SYSV is a very old flamewar.
> . Glibc based
Anyone using libc5 in a 1999 distribution should be shot.
> . RPM for package manager
... or rpm-compatible. And make the --prefix REALLY WORK so that
people can put the application wherever they want to.
> . GNU make, C/C++ compiler and development libraries
> . XFree86 installed to /usr/X11R6/lib (or /usr/X11)
I've never seen a Linux distribution w/o these as install options.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Tim Triemstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:08:09 -0500
Mark Weaver wrote:
> Way back in the stone-age (e.g. the late 80's) I wrote DOS, OS/2, and Unix
> programs using character-based and command line tools (vi, emacs, make,
> etc--for DOS and OS/2 we had clones of unix utils). Sure, I could give up the
> power, convenience, and productivity of modern IDEs and go back to writing
> code the old way if I had to, but why would I or anyone else *want* to? It
> amuses me up to read Linux advocates suggesting that emacs and make are
> somehow the wave of the future in programming.
I agree :)
People that think using only GNU tools is somehow "right" or "morally
sound" are simply living in a world different from most. Computers are
tools, not moral or ethical decisions. And as such, noone says "find a
good rock, you can hammer in a nail just fine and its free and natural!
don't use that damn, corporate hammer!" why do people act like this for
computer software? I'm a huge fan of free software. I think if
something doesn't provide unique value worth marketing, it should be
free, with nothing in between. But when I hear people tell me that the
command line is always as productive as the commercial IDE's I laugh. I
laugh as I run a compile of hundreds of class files on Windows using
VCafe in about 4 seconds while they watch javac churn away... I watch
as they edit a makefile and I press F2 and rename a file while the
internal makefile is auto-updated with the change...
Advocates would then say "Symantec is evil for making a superior product
and not making it free" or "it wouldn't be so buggy if it was free."
Both may be correct statements, but the fact is that if I use Symantec's
IDE I can put better food on my table than if I use the command line and
VI. We live in a free market - without it we wouldn't have these great
computers that we use. If Oracle didn't SELL their database all these
years, they wouldn't have the money to make a port to Linux and be able
to afford a free web server for you to download it from...
IDE's are just another tool that may or may not be better for you. But
people that say "don't use an IDE you wimp" and then say "Emacs IS an
IDE" don't really pay attention to their own words, do they? If
CodeWarrior doesn't compile faster, provide a better make facility or a
better editor, I won't use it. If it does, why wouldn't I use it? I
might go to computer hell? :)
--
Tim Triemstra ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Atlanta, GA USA
Home page: http://detlanta.com
------------------------------
From: "Jeff & Barbara Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Device Driver for Dell Powervault/Clarion disk arrays
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 19:00:50 -0600
I'am trying to find or write a device driver for redhat 5.2 and Dell
PowerVault
disk arrays. These arrays are actually Clarion arrays resold buy dell.
------------------------------
From: Enkidu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:52:53 +1200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> The developers at RH *do* produce code. They *do* do more than
> just collect Linux apps into one.
> Various things they do have been pointed out here in this thread.
> Among them are sysadmin apps, and the install process, as well
> as RPM itsself.
> To ignore these facts, and claim they do nothing other than
> collect stuff, is to appear foolish.
>
Are you suggesting that the Redhat sysadmin apps, install process
etc are *essential* to run Linux? If so you are wrong. All they do
is tie you in to doing it the Redhat way!
Cliff
------------------------------
From: John Florian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Undefined referenced to '__bzero'
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 01:06:38 +0000
Hello,
I got in a little over my head with my upgrades when I started messing
with glibc. My box began life with RH 5.1, but I have upgraded to
2.2.1, then 2.2.2, and finally 2.2.3. All was working very well, but
according to the kernel Changes file I still had some stuff that was a
little old. All of the upgrades also went well... right up until I
tried upgrading to glibc 2.1.
I've read that it's easy to screw a system up with the libraries so I
attempted to be careful. I had compiled and installed glibc 2.1 into
/usr/local/lib with no apparent problems. I then did a ldconfig and
still no problems. It worked so well that I doubted anything was
finding the new glibc. I figured that everything must still be
finding the RH 5.1 original under /lib. So I edited /etc/ld.so.conf
to put /usr/local/lib first and then did another ldconfig. Everything
went to hell right then. Any DLL'd executable (most everythihng)
failed to run. I was forced to do a cold reset and it looked even
worse then.
A friend suggested booting from the RH 5.1 CD and using the bash
provided on a hidden VT during the install to copy
cdrom/live/etc/ld.so.cache to my /etc. That seemed to fix things as
long as I kept /usr/local/lib out of my /etc/ld.so.conf altogether.
If I added it back to end of the file where it was originally (and
things were working) I wound up dead again.
I've since moved all files related to glibc-2.1 out of /usr/local/lib
(I identified them by date stamp). Then I was able to have
/usr/local/lib in my ld.so.conf once again. I thought I'd been to
hell and back and considered myself grateful, but...
Now I cannot compile anything, including old kernels and such that
used to compile just fine. Every make ends with a complaint like:
/tmp/cca004861.o: In function `main':
/tmp/cca004861.o(.text+0x3f5): undefined reference to `__bzero'
make[1]: *** [tools/build] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot'
make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
I have no idea what to try now to fix the undefined reference to
'__bzero'.
I appologize for being lengthy, but I'm not certain of what may
relevant so I included it all. Please help.
Thanks,
John (Loving Linux, despite being taught a lesson or two)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
