tim sco5-gcc FAILS (removing ${x86_elf_asm} should fix this)
tim I don't think anyone tries to put gnu ld on
tim SCO OpenServer 5.
In any case, as far as I see we have two choices for 0.9.7:
1. insert the proposed perl filter (it works as stated, and I feel
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:30:23 +0100, Andy
Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
appro There are two more options.
appro
appro 3. Remove ${x86_elf_asm} from sco5-gcc line.
appro
appro 4. Replace ${x86_elf_asm} in sco5-gcc rule with ${x86_sol_asm} and that
appro would be
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
tim sco5-gcc FAILS (removing ${x86_elf_asm} should fix this)
tim I don't think anyone tries to put gnu ld on
tim SCO OpenServer 5.
In any case, as far as I see we have two choices for 0.9.7:
1. insert the proposed
3. Remove ${x86_elf_asm} from sco5-gcc line.
This should be done even without any other changes.
You'll notice that ${x86_elf_asm} was added to the sco5-gcc line
for 0.9.7 and it never worked.
^^^ I see...
4. Replace ${x86_elf_asm} in sco5-gcc rule with
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
3. Remove ${x86_elf_asm} from sco5-gcc line.
This should be done even without any other changes.
You'll notice that ${x86_elf_asm} was added to the sco5-gcc line
for 0.9.7 and it never worked.
^^^ I see...
4.
3. Remove ${x86_elf_asm} from sco5-gcc line.
Feels like a wrap-up point for me... I've verified
solaris[64]-sparcv9-[g]cc, solaris-x86-gcc, irix[64]-mips3-cc,
linux-alpha-[gc]cc, linux-x86_64 and linux-ia64(*) targets. Well, not to
mention linux-pentium and FreeBSD-elf...
As for DES assembler
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed,
25 Dec 2002 21:03:37 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim I'll try and work on it between getting a server ready to install on monday.
tim I've attached a couple of sed man pages. (in case you figure it out first)
Hmm, they both refer to ed
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:03:37 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim I'll try and work on it between getting a server ready to install on monday.
tim I've attached a couple of sed man pages.
tim I've attached a couple of sed man pages. (in case you figure it out first)
Hmm, they both refer to ed for regular expressions...
They used to have manual pages on-line, but apparently it's moved...
Aha! See http://www.caldera.com/support/docs/. No need to bore the whole
list with
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu,
26 Dec 2002 09:36:09 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim Perhaps we are going down the wrong path. Instead of wasting our time
tim trying to figure out each platform's sed, maybe we should be using perl.
tim Perl should work the same on all
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:08:00 +0100, Andy
Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
appro maybe we should be using perl.
appro
appro If it ought to be perl, then I'd rather get rid of $(CPP) altogether. In
appro which case I'd implement elf-pic perlasm option and simply
appro maybe we should be using perl.
appro
appro If it ought to be perl, then I'd rather get rid of $(CPP) altogether. In
appro which case I'd implement elf-pic perlasm option and simply
appro
appro asm/dx586-elf.o: asm/dx586-elf.s
appro $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $
appro
appro
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:02:49 +0100, Andy
Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
appro appro and make sure perl emits universal code (i.e. no comments:-). Note that
appro appro the first rule automatically covers for -b elf of yours:-)
appro
appro How about reworking
appro appro and make sure perl emits universal code (i.e. no comments:-). Note
that
appro appro the first rule automatically covers for -b elf of yours:-)
appro
appro How about reworking that for 0.9.8? Or if you dare, for 0.9.7a?
appro
appro ??? I already said that I'm holding this
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:31:38 +0100, Andy
Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
appro Yet I'd dare:-) If it was up to me and if Tim is with us [i.e. is ready
appro to swiftly verify a snapshot on explicit request], I'd pull it [unified
appro *586-elf.o rules] even now:-) I
appro Yet I'd dare:-) If it was up to me and if Tim is with us [i.e. is ready
appro to swiftly verify a snapshot on explicit request], I'd pull it [unified
appro *586-elf.o rules] even now:-) I have Linux and Solaris/Intel,
appro login.openssl.org is a FreeBSD machine... So shall we?
I
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
levitte In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:31:38
+0100, Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
levitte
levitte appro Yet I'd dare:-) If it was up to me and if Tim is with us [i.e. is ready
levitte appro to swiftly verify
A lot of developers have waited a very long time for 0.9.7, over two years, and now
that its in final beta tests, a discussion is active about making major changes to it.
Does not make sense.
Ken
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
levitte In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me make sure I understand. One SCO Unix, GCC without GNU ASM
*might* require -no-asm. That's the risk. The benefit is much cleaner
make.
I say go for it.
/r$
__
OpenSSL Project
In message 3E0B49CA.4377.9884857@localhost on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:26:18 -0600,
Kenneth R. Robinette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
support A lot of developers have waited a very long time for 0.9.7, over two years,
and now
support that its in final beta tests, a discussion is active about making
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu,
26 Dec 2002 16:17:28 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim sco5-gcc FAILS (removing ${x86_elf_asm} should fix this)
timI don't think anyone tries to put gnu ld on
timSCO OpenServer 5.
Uhmm, we're talking gnu as, not gnu
Whats wrong with Windows?
Ken
In message 3E0B49CA.4377.9884857@localhost on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:26:18 -0600,
Kenneth R. Robinette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
support A lot of developers have waited a very long time for 0.9.7, over two years,
and now
support that its in final beta tests, a
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:17:28 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim sco5-gcc FAILS (removing ${x86_elf_asm} should fix this)
tim I don't think anyone tries to put gnu ld on
tim
In message 3E0B85E7.26469.A731912@localhost on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:42:47 -0600,
Kenneth R. Robinette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
support Whats wrong with Windows?
There's a report that it doesn't work with MIT Kerberos (which we
claim to support). I'm thinking we shouldn't consider that a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue,
24 Dec 2002 16:21:32 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim sed -e 's/ \?\([\.,@]\) */\1/g' -e 's/ *:/:/g' -e 's/#.*//'
tim
tim It doesn't work with the sed on UnixWare or sed on SCO OpenServer.
tim The 's/#.*//' rule works.
tim It seems to do
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:21:32 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim sed -e 's/ \?\([\.,@]\) */\1/g' -e 's/ *:/:/g' -e 's/#.*//'
tim
tim It doesn't work with the sed on UnixWare or sed on
Rats, forgot to attach the man pages.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Tim Rice wrote:
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:21:32 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim sed -e 's/ \?\([\.,@]\) */\1/g' -e 's/
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
My solution was to add support for assembly modules.
We probably have to postpone this patch to 0.9.7a. If you only could
reply more swiftly so that the changes could be exposed in beta...
Sorry for the delay. I've been doing some paying jobs so
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
My solution was to add support for assembly modules.
We probably have to postpone this patch to 0.9.7a. If you only could
reply more swiftly so that the changes could be exposed in beta...
Most improtantly
I don't think so! It must be
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
But in either case I was actually thinking about something like this:
... sed -e 's/ +\([\.,:@]\) +/\1/g' -e 's/#.*//' ...
Doesn't work here.
Ie. doesn't do what ... sed -e 's/\. /./g' -e 's/@ /@/' ... did.
for the unified rule. I.e. *more*
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue,
24 Dec 2002 09:23:47 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
tim
tim But in either case I was actually thinking about something like this:
tim
tim ... sed -e 's/ +\([\.,:@]\) +/\1/g' -e 's/#.*//' ...
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:23:47 -0800 (PST), Tim Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tim On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
tim
tim But in either case I was actually thinking about something like this:
My solution was to add support for assembly modules.
We probably have to postpone this patch to 0.9.7a. If you only could
reply more swiftly so that the changes could be exposed in beta...
Most improtantly
I don't think so! It must be complaining about leal
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:16:40 +0100, Andy
Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
appro I can imagine / :/:/, but where do /\. /./ and /@ /@/ some from? Can you
appro pinpoint the lines? I mean just give the offending lines' number...
Actually, I have no problem seeing that
appro I can imagine / :/:/, but where do /\. /./ and /@ /@/ some from? Can you
appro pinpoint the lines? I mean just give the offending lines' number...
Actually, I have no problem seeing that spaces might be added at least
around '.' by $(CPP). Some modern C preprocessors do separate
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:57:00 +0100, Andy
Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
appro #define a b
appro a.c;b.c
appro
appro gets preprocessed as b .c;b.c, but not as b . c ; b . c. Can you
appro really confirm that you've observed the latter behaviour (or similar)?
I
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Andy Polyakov wrote:
My solution was to add support for assembly modules.
Why do you want to add more rules? Well, I actually fail to understand
To fix the platforms I have access to without breaking those I don't
have access to. :-)
why can't we have a unified rule?
My solution was to add support for assembly modules.
Why do you want to add more rules? Well, I actually fail to understand
why can't we have a unified rule? I mean something like this:
asm/dx86-elf.o: asm/dx86unix.cpp
$(CPP) -DELF asm/sx86unix.cpp | \
sed -e 's/\. /./g'
The crucial thing to test is that things are still working properly in
Windows, especially the DES assembler modules. They been changed to
generate PIC code on Unix, and it's important that we get tests on how
that affects Windows, if it does.
Try openssl-0.9.7-SNAP-20021214 instead as it
Yes, indeed, win32 asm (both nasm + masm) are broken in
openssl-0.9.7-stable-SNAP-20021213.
Nasm gives:
===
[NASM version 0.98.35 compiled on Oct 28 2002]
nasmw -f win32 -o crypto\des\asm\d_win32.obj .\crypto\des\asm\d_win32.asm
.\crypto\des\asm\d_win32.asm:60: error: expression
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
It will be available tomorrow.
The crucial thing to test is that things are still working properly in
Windows, especially the DES assembler modules. They been changed to
generate PIC code on Unix, and it's important that we get
41 matches
Mail list logo
