> This is *with* the RedHat patches applied locally?
I made a nasty typo. skipped NOT. I was not NOt willing to apply a big patch. Yes patch now work on RH 6.1, SGI and Cygwin, including I built samples and tested each example. No crash. 80% of compiler warning disappeared. >Does this > mean you are > back to the opinion that we ought to apply those patches prior to 4.1.0? NO, Not really. I mean have some other users test it too for other OS, like Solaris, AIX and other setups. I prefer to apply it after realeasing 4.1.0 so it gets in queue for 4.1.0.1 beta to fix any bugs which may get introduced. I am going to test the same patch with MSVc tonite, at home. Suhaib > > Greg > > "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/14/2000 03:32:55 PM > > Please respond to [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > cc: > Subject: RE: [opendx-dev] 4.0.10 -> 4.1.0 > > > > > > Well, I have a few more builds to report. I got problems with PATCH file > from RedHat fixed. > It builds on SGI 6.5.5 using GCC 2.95.2 and GNU make, built on Redhat 6.1. > It also built under Cygwin. > So obviously today I had been playing with OpenDX at work ;-) > > On my way to fix the problems associated with patch file from RedHat, I > acidently fixed something else too. On SGI now OpenDX does not complain > about not having enough SHM, a work around, in the past > was to use DXMEMORY flags to circumvent this error message on SGI. I can > open and work with each example > including JAVADX on SGI IRIX 6.5., RedHat 6.1 and Cygwin 1.1. > > Since patch now got even a bit bigger then Elliot put it RedHat site, I am > willing to commit it to CVS, > thought it passes 3 OS build and tests. > > I would tar the diff file and put on my Web Pages. Pete can download it > and > test it then he > decides to apply or not to CVS. > > Suhaib > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 3:15 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [opendx-dev] 4.0.10 -> 4.1.0 > > > > > > I agree, too. OK, I'd like to suggest that we do a little sanity > checking > > just to make sure we are not missing anything obvious. It looks like > > Jiten's nightly builds are running smoothly on DEC 4.0, AIX > 4.3.2 w/ xlc, > > and Linux/RH6.1. I'll run a clean build on SGI/IRIX6.2, and run a > couple > > tests on each of these. Sounds like Suhaib has cygwin under control. > Can > > anyone else report on a recent clean cvs build? Anyone willing to build > > and run on other platforms over the next couple days? I'd be > happy if we > > could just run a couple samples on as wide an array of platforms > > as we can, > > but let's set a limit so this doesn't drag on too much. Friday? > > > > Greg > > > > "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@opendx.watson.ibm.com on > > 03/14/2000 12:56:34 PM > > > > Please respond to [email protected] > > > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > To: <[email protected]> > > cc: > > Subject: RE: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use > > > > > > > > I abolsutely agree with David. I think it is better to declare 4.0.10 > > from yesterday CVS as 4.1.0. It is stable, then introduce other > > changes like MSVC and the patch from RedHat and work to fix new bugs. > > > > Suhaib > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David L. > > > Thompson > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 12:41 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use > > > > > > > > > I question this patch before the bump. We've seen stable builds with > > > what we have now. I started to perform a lot of the same stuff they > > > did at Redhat, and found that at times things destabilized. I'd > > > rather get 4.1.0 out with what we have, get the readmes, etc that > > > we're supposed to add and then do the bump. Past that, then apply all > > > these patches and start working on an odd number revision again. I > > > have a lot more to add than just the changing the return NULLs to > > > return ERRORs. Basically they just cleaned up some minor compiler > > > errors. > > > > > > David > > > > > > >A couple of weeks ago I asked for tests of a large patch submitted > from > > > >redhat. We heard back from Jeff with his partial OK, and that's > > > it. I think > > > >these patches should go in and we should fix obvious breakage > > > prior to 4.1 . > > > >Pete > > > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > >> I'm in. Any objections? > > > >> > > > >> BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the standard gnu > > build > > > >> structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of > > > code changes > > > >> for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make > > > them compatible > > > >> with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. > > > I think its a > > > >> necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of > > > the exec that > > > >> doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff. > > > >> > > > >> So. Are we go for 4.1.0? > > > >> > > > >> Greg > > > >> > > > >> "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@opendx.watson.ibm.com on > > > >> 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM > > > >> > > > >> Please respond to [email protected] > > > >> > > > >> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > > > >> To: <[email protected]> > > > >> cc: > > > >> Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use > > > >> > > > >> Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? > > > >> > > > >> I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed > > > XDK 6.2 and > > > >> MSVC > > > >> 6.0 > > > >> out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual > > > editings, if we are > > > >> set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the > > > version number now, > > > >> instead of redoing it again. > > > >> After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot of > > > new headers > > > >> and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source > patching. M$ > > is > > > >> about > > > >> to > > > >> release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated > > library and > > > >> header > > > >> changes again. > > > >> We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is > > > released. It > > > >> may make binaries > > > >> unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped > > > now before we > > > >> get into another cycle of > > > >> unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. > > > >> > > > >> Suhaib > > > > > > -- > > > .................................................................. > > > ........... > > > David L. Thompson The University of Montana > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Science Department > > > http://www.cs.umt.edu/u/dthompsn Missoula, MT 59812 > > > Work Phone : (406)257-8530 > > > > > > > > >
