bartm@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Bart Muyzer) (03/06/90)
To all MINIX users:
While doing the upgrade from ST 1.1 to ST 1.5.0, I came across the following
problems. Could anyone please help me with them or send her/his own
experiences?
1. I checked all crc's; they seem to match (except for some files that
I modified myself according to postings in comp.os.minix) exCept for
the lib/posix directory. The crc's for the following files match with
the PC-version, NOT the ST-version:
chmod.c creat.c exec.c fdopen.c getgrent.c getpwent.c link.c
mkfifo.c open.c read.c stat.c unlink.c utime.c write.c
To all these files, I applied cdifs from posix.cdif, and I had no
problems. Is this a mistake from Frans?
I compiled the (generated) ST sources for these commands, had no
problems, and all commands seem to work...
2. cv.c includes the files <out.h> and <a.out.h>. Both define S_ABS:
<out.h> #define S_ABS 0x0001 /* absolute section type */
<a.out.h> #define S_ABS ((unsigned short)-1) /* internal segnum
or extern symbol
num */
cv.c used the latter, which gave a warning. Is this ok? The meanings
of S_ABS seem to differ...
3. During compilation of the new sh, I got a warning: "Incompatible
pointers in =". The following fragment shows what happens:
typedef long jmp_buf[13];
jmp_buf m1; /* Make m1 an array of 13 longs */
int *failpt;
setjmp(failpt = m1);
Setjmp() expects its argument to be of type 'jmp_buf'; here it gets an
int * instead. First, m1 (a long *) is forced to an int * (scary...,
and this produces the warning), the result is assigned to failpt and
passed to setjmp.
This is a typical example of assuming that sizeof(long) == sizeof(int),
which may be true on a PC, but certainly isn't on an ST...
Is it save to ignore this? If no, what should I do about it?
4. The compilation of de (disk editor) broke on this fragment from
<type.h>:
#if (CHIP == M68000)
typedef long vir_bytes; <-- "long with illegal type"
#endif
(CHIP is defined as M68000). vir_bytes isn't defined elsewhere, not in
any system header files, not in de's own header files. I don't know
what is wrong... The size and crc of <type.h> match with the ones
Frans posted.
5. There has been a posting about a missing 'mknod' for /dev/tty1 in the
makedev script. What was it again?
6. Some commands produce warnings about "conversion of pointer to int
loses accuracy" (and int -> ptr, which is worse). Should I ignore
these?
REMARK:
I had to chmem +25000 /usr/lib/opt in order to compile ic, and to
chmem +25000 /usr/lib/cv in order to compile kermit.
You can either answer in comp.os.minix or by email (bartm@cs.ruu.nl).
Thanx in advance,
>] Bart [<
--
Bart Muijzer, Department of Computer Science, University of Utrecht
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands______________
Email: bartm@cs.ruu.nl, UUCP: ...!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!bartm |Hardware likes
Phone: +31-3404-19844 ext. 390 (work), +31-5443-71082 (home) |soft treatment
--
Bart Muijzer, Department of Computer Science, University of Utrecht
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands______________
Email: bartm@cs.ruu.nl, UUCP: ...!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!bartm |Hardware likes
Phone: +31-3404-19844 ext. 390 (work), +31-5443-71082 (home) |soft treatmentmeulenbr@cstw68.prl.philips.nl (Frans Meulenbroeks) (03/06/90)
In article <2571@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl] bartm@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Bart Muyzer) writes:
]
] To all MINIX users:
]
] While doing the upgrade from ST 1.1 to ST 1.5.0, I came across the following
] problems. Could anyone please help me with them or send her/his own
] experiences?
]
] 1. I checked all crc's; they seem to match (except for some files that
] I modified myself according to postings in comp.os.minix) exCept for
] the lib/posix directory. The crc's for the following files match with
] the PC-version, NOT the ST-version:
]
] chmod.c creat.c exec.c fdopen.c getgrent.c getpwent.c link.c
] mkfifo.c open.c read.c stat.c unlink.c utime.c write.c
]
] To all these files, I applied cdifs from posix.cdif, and I had no
] problems. Is this a mistake from Frans?
] I compiled the (generated) ST sources for these commands, had no
] problems, and all commands seem to work...
Maybe. starting from 1.5.3 the PC and ST lib are the same (with the
exception of the assembler files). Better upgrade to the 1.5.3
version.
]
] 2. cv.c includes the files <out.h> and <a.out.h>. Both define S_ABS:
fixed in 1.5.3
] 3. During compilation of the new sh, I got a warning: "Incompatible
] pointers in =". The following fragment shows what happens:
ignore this. It does not harm and will be fixed in the next release.
]
] 4. The compilation of de (disk editor) broke on this fragment from
[...]
use the 1.5.3 version
] 5. There has been a posting about a missing 'mknod' for /dev/tty1 in the
] makedev script. What was it again?
I'll post a complete Makedev script with the next release (soon)
] 6. Some commands produce warnings about "conversion of pointer to int
] loses accuracy" (and int -> ptr, which is worse). Should I ignore
] these?
ignore these
Once again:
A lot of the commands in 1.5.0 have problems. The 1.5.3 commands are
much more stable. After applying the 1.5.0 patches go straight to the
1.5.3 patches.
ST 1.5.3 is very compatible with the PC version.
fs and mm are exactly the same
include has two different files and one new one
commands are all the same except for a few commands which are PC
specific and a few commands which are ST specific
kernel: is partly compatible
Generally speaking 1.5.3 is quite stable and very PC compatible.
The known problems are minor and will be fixed soon in a consolidating
posting, which will turn 1.5 into a stable common base for both PC and ST.
regards,
Frans Meulenbroeks (meulenbr@cst.philips.nl)
Centre for Software Technology
( or try: ...!mcsun!phigate!prle!cst!meulenbr)jack@csmunix.larc.nasa.gov (Jack Dunn) (03/10/90)
I agree with Frans, ST 1.5.3 version is very stable. I have had to chmem on de and man to get the to work. Here is another question. Has the "at" command every been sent to the ST users. I can not find it in my version of 1.5.3. It is not in the orginal ST 1.1 release from PH. I can only find cdif's for the PC 1.5.x releases and the ST 1.5.x releases. Is this correct, or did trash it somewhere along the way. Jack Dunn