Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
Hello Erik, Monday, December 14, 2009, 5:44:22 AM, you wrote: I also pointed out that Windows NT had a fully compliant POSIX subsystem, by design, and that Microsoft cared at least enough about POSIX support to buy the company that made what is now SUA. How does that explain things like fstat() and stat() returning different values for the same file: POSIX is a *subsystem*. you are using Win32 subsystem. There is also OS2 subsystem for execution of 16-bit OS/2 programs partial emulation of POSIX API in C compiler libraries has nothing common with subsystem implemented as part of the OS. you have never used POSIX subsystem actually (and btw, it's absent in Win9x line) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
Bulat Ziganshin wrote: POSIX is a *subsystem*. you are using Win32 subsystem. There is also OS2 subsystem for execution of 16-bit OS/2 programs partial emulation of POSIX API in C compiler libraries has nothing common with subsystem implemented as part of the OS. you have never used POSIX subsystem actually (and btw, it's absent in Win9x line) Please enlighten me. How do I access the POSIX subsystem? Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
Hello Erik, Monday, December 14, 2009, 1:02:58 PM, you wrote: POSIX is a *subsystem*. you are using Win32 subsystem. There is also Please enlighten me. How do I access the POSIX subsystem? i don't know since i never tried. it seems that this is bad idea. if you really need it, it should be better to use cygwin POSIX subsystem was implemented by MS (and other major players) only to meet some bureaucratic reqs from DoD/UsGov, and i don't know any program really using it. just don't mix C library emulation of POSIX calls on top of Win32 with POSIX subsystem (btw, both are implemented on top of native Windows API) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:02 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Bulat Ziganshin wrote: POSIX is a *subsystem*. you are using Win32 subsystem. There is also OS2 subsystem for execution of 16-bit OS/2 programs partial emulation of POSIX API in C compiler libraries has nothing common with subsystem implemented as part of the OS. you have never used POSIX subsystem actually (and btw, it's absent in Win9x line) Please enlighten me. How do I access the POSIX subsystem? I'm not sure of all the details, but the program ends up getting linked differently. The GNU ld user guide says: --subsystem which:major.minor Specifies the subsystem under which your program will execute. The legal values for which are native, windows, console, posix, and xbox. You may optionally set the subsystem version also. Numeric values are also accepted for which. Duncan ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
Hello Duncan, Monday, December 14, 2009, 1:33:14 PM, you wrote: Please enlighten me. How do I access the POSIX subsystem? I'm not sure of all the details, but the program ends up getting linked differently. The GNU ld user guide says: yes, it should be linked to other dlls. the catch is that RTS/stdlib uses subsystem-specific calls, so you will need to write in assembler to ensure that your program don't use any Win32 calls :) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[6]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
Hello Erik, Monday, December 14, 2009, 1:27:12 PM, you wrote: It seems the POSIX subsystem was POSIX.1 only and was removed completely in windows XP. Thats not a solution. yes, i mean the same. just don't mix up fseek() in your C compiler with windows POSIX implementation POSIX subsystem was implemented by MS (and other major players) only to meet some bureaucratic reqs from DoD/UsGov, You mean source code compatibility with dozens of UNIX variants from dozens of UNIX vendors? You see that as a beurocratic requirement? i don't rememeber details. something that they buyed only hardware with POSIX-compatible OSes so MS implemented it meet reqs but really this implementation was not intended for real use :) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
All replies to the list please. John D. Earle wrote: When I came to the Haskell mailing list I intended to advance a thought which I never got around to and since we are on the topic. I ran into problems building Haskell from source and I reasoned that since the build system has a POSIX flavor it might be better to officially build Haskell on Windows using SUA. The keyword here is officially. There is a MinGW Linux cross compiler that allows you to compile a program on Linux that will run on Windows. A problem with using a cross compiler is you won't get to run the test suite. The windows API reimplementation Wine is not godd for must things but should be more than adequate to run test suites. For libsndfile I release pre-compiled windows binaries that have been cross compiler from Linux to windows. I run the rather comprehensive libsndfile test suite under Wine and it works very well indeed. Unfortunately Wine currently only supports 32 bit windows. For 64 bit windows I still cross compile from Linux, but I then generate a testsuite tarball that contains all the binaries required to run the test suite. This can then be transferred to the target machine and run in a MinGW or Cygwin shell. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
On Dec 14, 2009, at 03:44 , Bulat Ziganshin wrote: POSIX is a *subsystem*. you are using Win32 subsystem. There is also OS2 subsystem for execution of 16-bit OS/2 programs Microsoft dropped both of those some time back (specifically the subsystem mechanism, that is). Some parts of the subsystems migrated elsewhere, though. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allb...@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Fwd: Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
POSIX subsystem was implemented by MS (and other major players) only to meet some bureaucratic reqs from DoD/UsGov, and i don't know any program really using it. just don't mix C library emulation of POSIX calls on top of Win32 with POSIX subsystem (btw, both are implemented on top of native Windows API) True. I tested the posix subsystem in the early days of NT and I found that fork actually forked nothing:. Exec after fork simply substituted the old process with the new without creation of any new process.. Then I concluded that the Posix sybsystem was there simply to pass the government requirements for public contracts. Probably, some standard executable test. Arguably, the bugs where intentionally there just to make sure that it was useless, for reasons that anyone may guess... ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
On Dec 14, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Richard O'Keefe wrote:
I also pointed out that Windows NT had a fully compliant
POSIX subsystem, by design, and that Microsoft cared at least enough
about POSIX support to buy the company that made what is now SUA.
How does that explain things like fstat() and stat() returning
different
values for the same file:
http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/Windiots/posix.html
That bug exists in windows XP, Vista and 7.
I did mention the DeathStation 9000 label it has earned.
I actually got that from your web site. I got this bug report there
too.
I am an anti-Microsoft bigot. I go around saying that if this
University were really opposed to software piracy, we'd ban all
Microsoft products. But I hope you like horror stories, because
in _this_ case, while all sanity and practicality are on one side,
Microsoft are fully within their legal rights to be on the other.
The Single Unix Specification, version 4 (POSIX.1-2008) defines
what fstat(), fstatat(), stat(), and lstat() should do to st_size for
- shared memory objects
- typed memory objects
- symbolic links
For other file types,
the structure members st_mode, st_ino, st_dev, st_uid,
st_gid,st_atim, st_ctim, and st_mtim shall have meaningful
values and the value of the member st_nlink shall be set to
the number of links to the file.
That is, st_size is specifically *not* defined and need *not* have
meaningful values.
The description of st_size in sys/stat.h says
For regular files, the file size in bytes, but I repeat, the
specifications of fstat() and stat() do NOT say that it is given
any meaningful value at all for regular files. An implementation
where fstat() always fills in 0xDEAF and stat() always fills in
0xDEAD would not fail to conform to POSIX for that reason alone.
By any sane or practical standard, the discrepancy between stat()
and fstat() in Windows is a bug. By the standard of conformance
to POSIX, it isn't.
(By the way, the mention of st_[acm]tim instead of st_[acm]time is
not a typo above. The old time_t members are gone. The new ones
are struct timespec-s, which looks very much the 2038 bug is still
with us.) Except for this change, the Single Unix Specification
version 3 is not much different from V4, in particular, V3 didn't
require a POSIX system to set st_size to anything useful for a
regular file either.
The moral of the story is
- Microsoft have excellent lawyers
- standards may promise far less than you think
You would think that Microsoft's much touted POSIX support would mean
that the POSIX calls I used on *nix would JustWork(tm) on windows.
Unfortunately, due to bugs in Microsoft's POSIX implementation this is
not the case. Bugs include:
- fstat() (64 bit file length aware version) returning the wrong
file
length after a write (win9x).
It doesn't have to return ANYTHING sensible, EVER, for a regular file.
- lseek() (64 bit file length aware version) to SEEK_END not
actually
going to the end of the file (win2000 and win2003).
That one looks like a real bug. Is it still there in Vista and
Windows 7?
- fstat() and stat() returning different results on the same file
(XP,
Vista and 7).
They don't have to return ANYTHING sensible, EVER, for regular files,
and they DON'T have to agree.
You are completely absolutely 100% right that the {,f}stat() issues
are deplorable and that any company having a decent respect for its
customers would fix the problem. But it _is_ legal POSIX behaviour.
Which is why I'm not so terribly impressed when John Earle said that
about Apple and Microsoft not adopting POSIX. POSIX is fine, but it
isn't perfect. Microsoft shows that adopting POSIX doesn't ensure
producing something _good_; Apple show that not quite adopting POSIX
doesn't mean what you have is necessarily _bad_.
Can we get back to How Can Haskell Be Saved now?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:16 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: POSIX subsystem was implemented by MS (and other major players) only to meet some bureaucratic reqs from DoD/UsGov, and i don't know any program really using it. There are two separate things being confused here, maybe three. (0) POSIX functions in the Windows C library. (1) The original POSIX subsystem in Windows NT. As far as I know it isn't shipped any more. (2) Softway Systems' Interix/SFU/SUA. Microsoft bought Softway. Softway wrote Interix to make money out of people who wanted a workable Unix environment on Windows. This _is_ amongst other things a subsystem, but it's NOT the one that was originally written to let weasels tick the POSIX box. I was talking about (2), not (1) or (0). This does matter for Haskell people wanting to use Haskell on Windows. It would be very interesting to know whether Haskell can be built to run under Services for Unix Applications (SUA) -- after all, Qt, SSH, Apache, and so on have been. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:02 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Bulat Ziganshin wrote: POSIX is a *subsystem*. you are using Win32 subsystem. There is also OS2 subsystem for execution of 16-bit OS/2 programs partial emulation of POSIX API in C compiler libraries has nothing common with subsystem implemented as part of the OS. you have never used POSIX subsystem actually (and btw, it's absent in Win9x line) Please enlighten me. How do I access the POSIX subsystem? (1) Install Services for Unix. (2) Start it. You are now running bash staring at something rather like Unix. (3) Build programs using c89, which comes with it, but needs MSVC, or gcc, which you can download from http://www.suacommunity.com/tool_warehouse.htm ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:16 AM, John D. Earle wrote: I am already familiar with SUA and it doesn't make Windows POSIX complaint in a way that I would call genuine. I grant you that certain aspects of Windows POSIX support have earned it the DeathStation 9000 label, but it's genuine enough to have earned this claim in the Wikipedia entry for POSIX: Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX 3.5 – enables full POSIX compliance for certain Microsoft Windows products. I also grant you that the Microsoft POSIX subsystem only supported the 1990 version of POSIX and has been described as close to useless. But of SUA it has been said As of 2004, server versions of Windows have a POSIX subsystem that supports threads, signals, sockets, and shared memory, less than twenty years after the standard was finalized, and only a little over a decade after Microsoft began advertising POSIX compliance. It was something I evaluated. There was no point in your mentioning that it exists unless you had ulterior motives. ulterior: being intentionally concealed so as to deceive. Nope. You said that Apple and Microsoft hadn't gone down the POSIX line. I pointed out that current MacOS _is_ a Unix; until today I've relied on Single Unix Specification version 3 documents to guide my Mac programming which makes it close enough for me. Today I downloaded the SUSv4 spec (POSIX 2008). I also pointed out that Windows NT had a fully compliant POSIX subsystem, by design, and that Microsoft cared at least enough about POSIX support to buy the company that made what is now SUA. For that matter, no version of Linux, no version of BSD, and no version of OpenSolaris is certified POSIX-compliant (open source projects change too fast for certification to be cheap). Microsoft can't go the POSIX route exclusively without killing their cash cow. VMS was the first POSIX-certified system, but that didn't mean DEC or VMS users abandoning VMS. zOS is POSIX-compliant, but I expect most sites running zOS have no intention of switching, and IBM have no intention of making them. It isn't what they are telling you that matters; it is what they are not telling you. It is called a half truth. If Haskell wants to be saved, it has got to give up the lying. What on earth is Haskell lying about? What does Haskell need to be saved from? (Its growing popularity and mushrooming library?) ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
Richard O'Keefe wrote: I also pointed out that Windows NT had a fully compliant POSIX subsystem, by design, and that Microsoft cared at least enough about POSIX support to buy the company that made what is now SUA. How does that explain things like fstat() and stat() returning different values for the same file: http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/Windiots/posix.html That bug exists in windows XP, Vista and 7. For that matter, no version of Linux, no version of BSD, and no version of OpenSolaris is certified POSIX-compliant (open source projects change too fast for certification to be cheap). For the last decade I have been the main author of libsndfile: http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/ a library that requires nothing of POSIX other than file I/O but needs to run on windows and *nix. You would think that Microsoft's much touted POSIX support would mean that the POSIX calls I used on *nix would JustWork(tm) on windows. Unfortunately, due to bugs in Microsoft's POSIX implementation this is not the case. Bugs include: - fstat() (64 bit file length aware version) returning the wrong file length after a write (win9x). - lseek() (64 bit file length aware version) to SEEK_END not actually going to the end of the file (win2000 and win2003). - fstat() and stat() returning different results on the same file (XP, Vista and 7). Because testing for and working around these bugs is simply too difficult, I have been forced to maintain tow versions of the file I/O code, one POSIX (that works on *nix including Mac OS X) and for windows, the native windows file I/O API. I suspect that authors of other open source projects that started on Linux and were then ported to windows would have similar stories of egregious unfixed bugs in Microsoft's POSIX implementation. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: How Can Haskell Be Saved?
What does Haskell need to be saved from? (Its growing popularity and mushrooming library?) Arguably John Earle's emails suggest that the answer to this is Yes. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
