Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <99B82AA9708ED0119B55006097125A00405B33@ifk63.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de> From: Heribert Dahms To: "'Frank Moehle'" , cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: RE: cooperation of cygwin and NuTCracker ?? Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:51:57 +0200 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Hi Frank, maybe you could create a separate, small executable using NuTCracker which does interprocess communication to a cygwin executable via sockets or files? Bye, Heribert (heribert_dahms AT icon-gmbh DOT de) > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Moehle [SMTP:Frank DOT Moehle AT Informatik DOT Uni-Oldenburg DOT DE] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:57 > To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com > Subject: cooperation of cygwin and NuTCracker ?? > > Hello, > > We are going to use cygwin to port a set of unix programs from > solaris to Windows NT. (Un)fortunately, we use a library from > am external product. This Product has also been ported from solaris > to NT, but using "NuTCracker". > We only have access to the final .DLL of this external product > (of cource shipped with the NuTCracker runtime enviroment). > > We have already made some progress in porting the programs that do not > need > the external library. I really want to say that the cygwin team did a > grat job! Everything looks and feels like unix, and we basicially only > had to > replace parts that were different between solaris and gnu-linux. All > our > Makefiled worked as expected, no need to fiddle with .exe stuff. > (ok, there _are_ some changes, e.g. we removed chown/chgrp lines, > used "install" instead of "cp" to copy the compiled programs to the > bin/ directory and seperated the binaries/libraries by platform > by referry to $(OSTYPE)) > > > Now comes the harder part: > > The DLL i was talking about is called "anaport.dll" and comed from a > very popular > CASE tool for embedded systems. > > We have created .a library for this one, using the following lines in > our Makefile: > > ---- > API_OBJ = anaport.a > API_DLL_NAME = anaport.dll > API_DLL = /cygdrive/y/stmm/misc/ANAPORT/$(API_DLL_NAME) > API_DEF = anaport.def > > $(API_OBJ): $(API_DEF) > dlltool --def $< --dllname $(API_DLL_NAME) \ > --output-lib $@ $(API_DLL) > > $(API_DEF): $(API_DLL) > echo EXPORTS > $@ > nm $< | grep ' T _stmm' | sed 's/.* T _//' >> $@ > ----- > > and the went on as usual: > > ---- > LIBRARIES = -l -lm > > $(Our_tool): $(Our_tool_OBJS) > gcc -o $(Our_tool) $(Our_tool_OBJS) $(API_OBJ) $(LIBRARIES) > ---- > > > The first result was that we could start the resulting binary, and get > a > few --help lines out of it (after setting NCDIR to point to the > nutcracker root). > But when we tried to really use the anaport.DLL part, > the NuTCracker side dumped core. > > > Are there any known issues in mixing cygwin and NuTCracker stuff ?? > Or is something important missing in the above procedure ?? > > > Thanks, > Frank. > > -- > ====================================================================== > = > Frank Moehle | Understanding is > a > Work : Uni Oldenburg,Computer Architecture Group | three-edged > sword. > Inhouse: frankm AT haydn | (Vorlon saying) > DOMAIN : Frank DOT Moehle AT Informatik DOT Uni-Oldenburg DOT DE > +------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > **** Its how you DO it, not how you don't. > **** > > -- > Want to unsubscribe from this list? > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com