davidb@titan.inmos.co.uk (David Boreham) (06/23/89)
What is involved in porting UNIX programs to OS/9-69000 ?? Well, I used to do a lot of this, and still do some, but the best I can do is give some pointers. Mabe someone else out there has the complete picture: 1) The file system is similar in that it is hierarchical and uses slashes. It does not allow links and has roots for each disk. As far as I know, all UNIX code doing disk file I/O works. Directory accesses work if the UNIX program is BSD. Many directories which you expect to find on a UNIX filesystem are absent (/etc, /usr....) 2) Yes the library supports many UNIX calls (more now than it used to). However, the main omissions are fork() and isatty(). Both of these cause major problems. I have in the past implemented my own isatty() by poking around in the file descriptors and so on. fork() is rather difficult since the OS-9 process creation mechanism is not like fork(). I usually re-write the code to use the OS-9 process creation call, but that's obviously not always convenient. 3) You don't have timers. 4) Any UNIX code which plays around with ioctl() and modifying terminal characteristics will need re-written to use the OS-9 calls. 5) The new OS-9 TCP/IP has sockets, provided by a thing called "socketman". I'm not sure exactly what this is yet. 6) Some UNIX programs use system() to invoke utilities like "ls". Obviously these will not be present on an OS-9 system. (Unless you have ported them -:) There are masses of things which are different but these are the ones which have caused me grief. However, you certainly can get pretty far porting UNIX code to OS9/68000. For instance, I've had "yacc", "lex", "kermit" and many other things going without much trouble. (I don't think X11 will work :) David Boreham, INMOS Limited | mail(uk): davidb@inmos.co.uk or ukc!inmos!davidb Bristol, England | (us): uunet!inmos-c!davidb +44 454 616616 ex 543 | Internet : @col.hp.com:davidb@inmos-c
ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Wolfgang Ocker) (06/27/89)
In article <1625@brwa.inmos.co.uk> davidb@inmos.co.uk () writes: >What is involved in porting UNIX programs to OS/9-69000 ?? >2) Yes the library supports many UNIX calls (more now than it used > to). However, the main omissions are fork() and isatty(). > Both of these cause major problems. fork() is a real problem, isatty() not: #include <sgstat.h> /* * i s w h a t */ static int iswhat(p) int p; { struct _sgs opt; if (_gs_opt(p, &opt) < 0) return(-1); return(opt._sgs_class); } /* * i s a t t y */ int isatty(f) int f; { int t; if ((t = iswhat(f)) < 0) return(0); return(t == 0); } /* * i s a p i p e */ int isapipe(f) int f; { int t; if ((t = iswhat(f)) < 0) return(0); return(t == 1); } >3) You don't have timers. But they are near. In 2.2 alarms are implemented, but don't work correctly in all cases. >There are masses of things which are different but these are >the ones which have caused me grief. However, you certainly >can get pretty far porting UNIX code to OS9/68000. For instance, >I've had "yacc", "lex", "kermit" and many other things going >without much trouble. (I don't think X11 will work :) X11.R3 runs on OSK (I have seen it with my own eyes.) A company in Germany has ported it. Regards, /// Wolfgang -- | Wolfgang Ocker | ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | | Lochhauserstr. 35a | pyramid!tmpmbx!recco!weo (home) | | D-8039 Puchheim | Technische Universitaet Muenchen | | Voice: +49 89 80 77 02 | Huh, What? Where am I? |
kim@mcrware.UUCP (Kim Kempf) (07/03/89)
In article <1103@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Wolfgang Ocker) writes: >X11.R3 runs on OSK (I have seen it with my own eyes.) A company >in Germany has ported it. > True, but it's hardware assisted. Eltec GMBH makes a co-processor that supports X11.R3 for OS-9. As far as I know, the code they have does not yet run stand alone on OS-9 without the coprocessor board. It's still quite a nice arrangement! -- ---------------- Kim Kempf, Microware Systems Corporation {sun,uunet}!mcrware!kim
ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Wolfgang Ocker) (07/10/89)
In article <1268@mcrware.UUCP> kim@mcrware.UUCP (Kim Kempf) writes: >In article <1103@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Wolfgang Ocker) writes: >>X11.R3 runs on OSK (I have seen it with my own eyes.) A company >>in Germany has ported it. >True, but it's hardware assisted. Eltec GMBH makes a co-processor that >supports X11.R3 for OS-9. As far as I know, the code they have does not yet >run stand alone on OS-9 without the coprocessor board. It's still quite a >nice arrangement! No, no special board is necessary. The X server runs directly on OSK. The DDX layer is, of course, adapted for their graphics hardware. For IPC they use self written filemanagers/ drivers. Regards, /// Wolfgang -- | Wolfgang Ocker | ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | | Lochhauserstr. 35a | pyramid!tmpmbx!recco!weo (home) | | D-8039 Puchheim | Technische Universitaet Muenchen | | Voice: +49 89 80 77 02 | Huh, What? Where am I? |
grunwald@Katmandu.ira.uka.de (Grunwald Betr. Tichy) (07/10/89)
X is hardware assisted on ELTEC boards, but is hardware assited on most UNIX systems too. Of course, you have to pot the device dependent parts to your system, but that's true for any system not yet supported. What's true too is, X is not very fast, but very big. But I think, the X-Software is worth porting X.