delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/10/11/07:33:02

Subject: Re: First round of XP tests
From: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: Andrew Cottrell <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <006601c1523b$9514a1f0$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
References: <000401c151ad$84f7a9e0$6ff8e0d5 AT pandora DOT be>
<006601c1523b$9514a1f0$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron>
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15.99+cvs.2001.10.05.05.19 (Preview Release)
Date: 11 Oct 2001 13:30:07 +0200
Message-Id: <1002799811.1295.98.camel@bender.falconsoft.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

> > Well duh :-)
> > Try "grep version include/dos.h |less".
> I tried this and it worked. The output I got was:
>     DJGPP_204 D:\dj204>grep version include/dos.h |less
>     extern unsigned short   _os_trueversion;
>     unsigned short _get_dos_version(int);
> 
> I suspect an old exe in the bin directory. Check to see that the exe file
> dates are from this month and if not then unzip the binary package again. If
Well, this seems _very_ unlikely, as I started from an empty dir and
extracted packges there.  So the less and grep executables are the ones
found in the binary packages I downloaded from clio.

> this doesn't fix it then I don't knwo what it could be. Does grep and less
> work standalone?
They do.  "grep blah <file>" works, and so does 'less file'.

> The updated Bash 2.05 at clio has the read issue fixed.

Good - I'll download it and see about configuring perl.

> > The $'foo' thing, right?  Still seems odd; bash only emits these
> > things in a way it can read back, so unless you mix bash versions,
> > there should be no problem.  May try this later.
> Yes this is the issue. I am now comparing Bash 2.04 and 2.05 output from GCC
> build to see if it is fixed, but preliminary test failed and I am testing
> again just in case.

A thought occurs - configure uses $CONFIG_SHELL (which defaults to
$SHELL, I think) to run config.status.
So if you run "bash205 ./configure --prefix=/dev/env/DJDIR ..." (with
bash205.exe a bash 2.05 executable), bash 2.05 will be used for the
configure script, but $SHELL (probably /dev/env/DJDIR/bin/bash.exe) will
be used to run config.status.  So if $DJDIR/bin/bash.exe is bash 2.04,
you do end up mixing versions.

> > > 5) Grep configuration issue - can't rebuild using config.bat,
> > > can build using pre-configured makefile
> > What was the problem here? config.bat simply sets up grep for
> > a regular 'configure' run, doesn't it?)
> It can't guess the host type.

Oh right.  Didn't updating config.guess/config.sub help?
I thought it was only perl's Configure that still had issues there?

> > >     a make install seems to create /dev/env, not /dev
> > >      and ./env.  This may simply be a change in the library.
> >
> > This is a completely separate thing, not specific to bash at all.
> > Basically,
> >   mkdir /dev
> >   mkdir /dev/env
> > creates /dev and ./env using 2.03; with the CVS libc, you get
> > /dev/env (as you might expect).  I think this is simply a CVS
> > libc change, so probably needn't be listed here;
> Shouldn't  the creation of these be surpressed?

That depends on your viewpoint.  I agree with you that we should just
take /dev into our own, virtual, namespace, hiding (NOT modifying) a
physical /dev directory if it exists.
Eli feels that we should be as unintrusive as possible and support a
physical /dev directory normally, with only /dev/env handled specially.

The former solution avoids creating /dev/env with every make install, as
the mkinstalldirs script creates leading dirs if they don't exist, while
the latter allows users to have a /dev directory.  So it's really a
judgment call.

> > > 11) bash 2.04 is unable to run autoconf; m4 complains
> > >        d:djgpptmp/t1234.567/traces.m4: no such file ...
> > >      Apparently, it somehow gets a path with backslashes.
> > >      bash 2.05 does not have this problem.
> Could you try again with the updated Bash 2.05 from clio and let me know how
> you get on.
Bash 2.05 didn't have the problem, so I expect it still doesn't.
Will try it though (might be during the weekend instead of tonight).


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019