Linux-Development-Sys Digest #92, Volume #7 Mon, 23 Aug 99 11:14:24 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why so inefficient source RPM's ?? (J.H.M. Dassen (Ray))
Re: 3com ISA cards and linux (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Linux - Memory model / protection scheme (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Linux - Memory model / protection scheme (Robert Kaiser)
Re: 497.2 days ought to be enough for everybody (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Why so inefficient source RPM's ?? (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Shared Libraries: what is the linux equivalent of "dllimport" and "dllexport"
(Mark Hamstra)
Re: PCI Programming (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Autoscan, Autoconf, and Automake - HOWTO? (Peter Samuelson)
Re: update_vm_cache (Peter Samuelson)
Re: 3com ISA cards and linux (Paul Sherwin)
Re: Shared Libraries: what is the linux equivalent of "dllimport" and "dllexport"
(Josh Stern)
Re: How can I make device driver module to support many version of kernel? (Peter
Samuelson)
Re: IDE for c++ dev? (Peter Samuelson)
Re: why not C++? (Jon Skeet)
Re: Shared Libraries: what is the linux equivalent of "dllimport" and "dllexport"
(Mark Hamstra)
Re: I HATE LT WIN MODEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ("Bradley Dunn")
Re: I HATE LT WIN MODEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Paul Flinders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.H.M. Dassen (Ray))
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,linux.redhat.rpm
Subject: Re: Why so inefficient source RPM's ??
Date: 23 Aug 1999 09:32:02 GMT
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually what I want is for Debian to adopt the rpm-ish way of allowing
>multiple separate patches in a source distribution. I.e. a tarfile rather
>than a single diff.
IIRC, people are working on it. The Debian X and gcc packages currently use
a workaround that has the same effect.
HTH,
Ray
--
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Crossposted-To:
at.linux,aus.computers.linux,be.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: 3com ISA cards and linux
Date: 23 Aug 1999 04:22:42 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > However, it seems that it is not possible for me to use Linux,
> > since [...] I use 3com EtherLink III ISA (3C509/3C509b) network
> > interface card, and there are no drivers which will support my card
> > in Linux.
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Ooops?
> One of my Linux boxes does use a 3C509. Had no problems to get it
> running. Even the Linux which included kernel 2.0.33 supported it.
Yeah, the 3c509 has been supported for ages. I *did* have trouble
getting a PnP version to run once (back in the 2.0.29 days I believe),
but IIRC I ended up just having to download a newer driver.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: Linux - Memory model / protection scheme
Date: 23 Aug 1999 04:27:12 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[nicolas.gasnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Well, linux does what win 32 doesn't (or does randomly ;-) : it
> handles processor exceptions instead of ignoring them (almost)
> all. That is killing programs that makes wrong memory acces, or stack
> overflow, or unauthorised acces to hardware registers, and never try
> to let programs continue.
"Never" is a strong word. You can catch SIGBUS/SIGSEGV if you want.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Kaiser)
Subject: Re: Linux - Memory model / protection scheme
Date: 23 Aug 1999 08:43:08 GMT
In article <7pni43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ulrich Weigand) writes:
> "Pizzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>about Linux -- since it's in flat memory model, the only way to give each
>>process its own address space is by updating the page tables at each task
>>switch, right? is this what happens? wouldn't that be kinda slow?
>
> Yes, this is what happens. But this happens also in Win95 (and NT) ...
>
Are you sure of this ?
(Being ignorant of the intel architecture, but knowing a few others
quite well,) I would expect that that the CPU has some register that
points to the page directory; on a task swich, you only change that
register (and possibly flush the TLB).
================================================================
Robert Kaiser email: rkaiser AT sysgo DOT de
SYSGO RTS GmbH
Mainz / Germany
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: 497.2 days ought to be enough for everybody
Date: 23 Aug 1999 04:44:02 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Florian Kirstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> My third box is getting near the magical limit of the Jiffies and
> will roll over the 497.2 day uptime limit in a few days. My problem:
> my first box survived this, my second one (I can't be 100% sure but I
> heard others had this, too) crashed. So: are there any kernel hackers
> with a deeper insight, who know where a rollover of the jiffies
> counter could result in a crash and under which conditions this can
> happen?
Basically it's throw-the-dice. Since jiffies are used as much by
device drivers as anything, if possible you might wish to take down
network interfaces, unload modules, unmount filesystems, kill -STOP
your updated, etc., whatever is practical, for the duration of the
rollover (30 seconds before and after should be more than enough).
Note that kernel 2.2 is much better about jiffies rollover, as Alan did
a lot of wrap fixing late in the 2.1 game (and in fact some fixing is
still showing up in the 2.2/2.3 patches). I like someone's suggestion
awhile back (it was on Cahalan's 2.2 wishlist web page...) of setting
jiffies to T minus 10 minutes on boot (instead of 0), to see what
breaks. On the other hand, most instances of the problem are readily
greppable so maybe this wouldn't be needed.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: Why so inefficient source RPM's ??
Date: 23 Aug 1999 04:55:04 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[me]
> > Actually what I want is for Debian to adopt the rpm-ish way of
> > allowing multiple separate patches in a source distribution.
> > I.e. a tarfile rather than a single diff.
[Ray Dassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> IIRC, people are working on it. The Debian X and gcc packages
> currently use a workaround that has the same effect.
Yeah but the workaround is ugly. (diffs within diffs ... I like
browsing the .diff.gz before applying it, and those are next to
illegible.)
Presumably the solution would be to provide a .tar.gz rooted with
debian/ and containing debian/patches/ which apply during build. The
problems I can see would be (a) reliably detecting which patches are
applied already (`touch'/`rm' zero-length files, I suppose), (b)
additional complexity generating source packages (hmmm, come to think
of it the process is actually a lot simpler) and (c) getting all the
little pieces of infrastructure updated including build tools, probably
debhelper, and the upload queue.
Who is working on this? Or should I be reading debian-devel to keep up
with these things?
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Shared Libraries: what is the linux equivalent of "dllimport" and
"dllexport"
Date: 23 Aug 1999 05:30:35 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Stern) writes:
> The namespace pollution issue is orthogonal to the size
> one.
No, it's not. Reducing namespace pollution by removing
symbols from a shared library directly results in decreased
size of the .dynsym and .dynstr sections, and thus of the
shared library as a whole -- and not by an insignificant
amount if the reports from the mozilla developers are
accurate.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: PCI Programming
Date: 23 Aug 1999 05:26:21 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> No libs, the procedures in there are part of the kernel, so you can't
> get them in a user mode program. You need to write a kernel module
Correct, but in this case, as another poster pointed out, the user-mode
program `setpci' can already do what he wants.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: Autoscan, Autoconf, and Automake - HOWTO?
Date: 23 Aug 1999 05:28:17 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Stephen Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I have some .cpp files I got off the web. I thought I would create a
> Makefile. There are only three files so I thought it would be an easy
> start for a novice. Is there a HOWTO or a website which talks about
> how to use these programs to create the configure and Makefile?
Ummm, the info documentation that comes with GNU make? (For three C++
files I suspect you don't really need a full-blown autoconf setup.
Just write the Makefile by hand.)
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: update_vm_cache
Date: 23 Aug 1999 05:23:41 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[newsseeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I put the same question to the linux-kernel mailing list and got
> greeted with cries of anguish that this question was asked again for
> the >1000th time. However they did give me an answer which is:
[answer snipped]
To you and to Hee-Chul Yun:
Do not, repeat, DO NOT run development kernels without following the
development process! This means reading linux-kernel or at least
enough of it to have some idea where development is going and which
patches to avoid.
Obviously if you run *any* Linux kernel you don't have anyone to sue
(though from what I hear, it's not too much fun to sue Microsoft
either) but with the development kernels, when something trashes your
filesystems (like 2.1.45 or 2.3.7 would have, for example), you not
only have no one to sue but no one will even feel sorry for you.
I don't mean to take the tone of a flame because obviously it's not
just you guys: a lot of people try to run development kernels when they
shouldn't. But a general question: What exactly did you hope 2.3.12
would do for you that 2.2.5 wouldn't? For myself, I run 2.3 to keep up
on the development process and maybe contribute the odd patch when I
see something wrong. The fact that you didn't know vfat was broken
from 2.3.7 until 2.3.13 tells me that you must have other reasons.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Sherwin)
Crossposted-To:
at.linux,aus.computers.linux,be.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: 3com ISA cards and linux
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:27:04 GMT
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:50:05 +0200, "Kalkas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>How shall I get those drivers? I have been at the 3com site, but they do not
>mention Linux; I plan to phone them directly.
>
The 3C509 is one of the commonest ISA ethernet cards around.AFAIK,
every Linux distribution includes support for this card, either
compiled into a kernel or as a loadable module.
However, you may need the DOS setup program if you don't have it
already. I suggest you reconfigure the card, switching off PnP and
setting IRQ and IO values manually. You get fewer problems that way.
You can get the 3Com config program from the 3Com website.
Best regards, Paul
Paul Sherwin Consulting 22 Monmouth Road, Oxford OX1 4TD, UK
Phone +44 (0)1865 721438 http://www.telinco.co.uk/psherwin/index.htm
Mobile +44 (0)7931 578334 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pager +44 (0)7666 797228
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Shared Libraries: what is the linux equivalent of "dllimport" and
"dllexport"
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Stern)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:29:37 GMT
Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Stern) writes:
>> The namespace pollution issue is orthogonal to the size
>> one.
>No, it's not. Reducing namespace pollution by removing
>symbols from a shared library directly results in decreased
>size of the .dynsym and .dynstr sections, and thus of the
>shared library as a whole -- and not by an insignificant
>amount if the reports from the mozilla developers are
>accurate.
Well okay, now we've changed what is actually shared by
the shared library (as opposed to just what it is called
in the global namespace). Incidentally, does "directly"
in the text above mean using objcopy?
- Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: How can I make device driver module to support many version of kernel?
Date: 23 Aug 1999 05:39:09 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I compiled one device driver in kernel 2.2.9. And copy it to other
> system, try to insert module in kernel with insmod command. But I
> can't because other system has kernel 2.2.5. But that device driver
> source can be compile and run in kernel 2.2.5. How can I make device
> driver module to support every kernel version 2.2.X?
You can't. You can enable MODVERSIONS support (one of the `make
config' questions) but it will not *always* work, only sometimes.
2.2.11 is not very binary-compatible with 2.2.10, for example.
Why can't you do this, when drivers in 'doze, AIX and other Unices work
fine across versions? Because the layering necessary is not good for
either code maintainability or performance, and there is no felt need
for it. The only people seriously inconvenienced are those who would
distribute closed-source drivers.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: IDE for c++ dev?
Date: 23 Aug 1999 05:33:35 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> i like emacs. it's probably not exactly the same as what you are
> looking for. however, emacs will compile as a subprocess and jump to
> errors. it can browse source via etags. you can run the debugger
> from within emacs and emacs brings the source up for single stepping
> through it.
What it doesn't do, of course, is manage projects graphically (unless
you count make-mode...) but in my opinion (not worth too much since
I've hardly ever used project-file IDE's) Makefiles are just as
flexible and, with a bit of a learning curve, not at all hard to use.
To answer the original question: there are various ongoing projects out
there, which I don't know much about, not feeling the need to try them.
If you're into commercial solutions, there is of course Metrowerks
CodeWarrior.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Skeet)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: why not C++?
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:25:05 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the desire to make string classes and then be able to concatenate
> strings together with + is the reason most found the idea appealing.
> However, I think operator overloading is a bad idea for the most part.
Were you partially responsible for Java, out of interest? ;)
(For the most part, I agree, btw.)
--
Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Shared Libraries: what is the linux equivalent of "dllimport" and
"dllexport"
Date: 23 Aug 1999 08:43:18 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Stern) writes:
> Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Stern) writes:
>
> >> The namespace pollution issue is orthogonal to the size
> >> one.
>
> >No, it's not. Reducing namespace pollution by removing
> >symbols from a shared library directly results in decreased
> >size of the .dynsym and .dynstr sections, and thus of the
> >shared library as a whole -- and not by an insignificant
> >amount if the reports from the mozilla developers are
> >accurate.
>
> Well okay, now we've changed what is actually shared by
> the shared library (as opposed to just what it is called
> in the global namespace).
Not sure exactly what you mean here. What I am talking about
is leaving the internal implementation details of the library
unchanged while removing the symbols from the global namespace
(and thus from the .dynsym or .dynstr section), effectively
paring down the public interface of the library.
> Incidentally, does "directly"
> in the text above mean using objcopy?
>From the previous discussion in this thread, that would appear
to be one way to do it; using a bleeding edge ld and a new
__attribute__(()) would appear to be another.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: "Bradley Dunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,redhat.hardware.arch.intel
Subject: Re: I HATE LT WIN MODEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:53:42 -0400
You should have bought a Lin Modem, they just fork with Linux/Unix and will
not work under Windows or Dos. They are made by Lu, 3Com(USR) and Bay
Networks. They cost about 12 dollars a piece.
BD13
By the way....... I was kidding....
liuyb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have a lt win modem, but I can't let it work in linux. I tried all means
> and spend a lot of time , the result is the same. So I hate it.
> I HATE WIN MODEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> ------------------ Posted via CNET Linux Help ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,redhat.hardware.arch.intel
Subject: Re: I HATE LT WIN MODEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 23 Aug 1999 15:27:58 +0100
Jordi Backx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> liuyb wrote:
>
> > I have a lt win modem, but I can't let it work in linux. I tried all means
> > and spend a lot of time , the result is the same. So I hate it.
> > I HATE WIN MODEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > ------------------ Posted via CNET Linux Help ------------------
> > http://www.searchlinux.com
>
> Bad news: there are also WIN-printers, e.g. HP deskjet 710.
True but the HP deskjet 710 can be used in Linux - see
http://www.httptech.com/ppa
Actually Ghostscript pretty much treats all printers as dumb raster
output devices.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
