evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (05/05/89)
I have been unsuccessful in attempts to make the Microport 286 DWB
work on my Enix 3.2 (now to be renamed OSIX :-Q). Did Microport do
something to AT&T COFF that makes it different from original AT&T
specs?
If the answer to the above is yes, is there a fix - either to the
binaries themselves, or a technical description of the Microport
binary file format? Folks at Everex tell me they'd like to build in
support for Microport 286 binaries if they know the file layout.
Thanks.
--
Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
For a dollar you can still buy: A piece of paper with the Queen's face on itplocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (05/09/89)
+---- In <1989May5.060529.18967@telly.on.ca> Evan Leibovitch writes: | I have been unsuccessful in attempts to make the Microport 286 DWB | work on my Enix 3.2 (now to be renamed OSIX :-Q). Did Microport do | something to AT&T COFF that makes it different from original AT&T | specs? +---- I'm not suprised. Microport *never* recompiled the DWB 286 stuff from source. The binaries came directly from Intel in STL (Single Task Loadable) format. V/286 had special support for this type file (gen'd by Intel's development tools), but it was NEVER part of an AT&T standard. Why, do you ask, didn't Microport ever recompile the sources? Because we didn't have them. DWB/286 was version 1 from AT&T, DWB/386 was version 2. All we had was DWB-Ver2 source, and it didn't compile on the 286 :-( The code generated by Microport's 286 compiler DOES generate COFF files, and these files DO run under 386 Unix - both Microport's and all the other 3.2 releases. Everex shouldn't have to do anything to make those things work - ATT already did it. As for the STL format DWB, ha! Even I don't know what STL looks like internally. -John Plocher (BTW - I liked your .signature :-) >For a dollar you can still buy: A piece of paper with the Queen's face on it (in strange colours, though!)
mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier) (05/09/89)
From article <1989May5.060529.18967@telly.on.ca>, by evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch): > I have been unsuccessful in attempts to make the Microport 286 DWB > work on my Enix 3.2 (now to be renamed OSIX :-Q). Did Microport do > something to AT&T COFF that makes it different from original AT&T > specs? The DWB that comes with Microport V/AT is not in COFF format but in RTL format. You can port the 286 software development system and other commands if you want but the Documenters workbench is a bit tough. Since it is DWB version 1.0 anyway, I recommend that you buy it. -Mike Grenier mike@cimcor.mn.org
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (05/09/89)
In article <1989May5.060529.18967@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
I have been unsuccessful in attempts to make the Microport 286 DWB
work on my Enix 3.2 (now to be renamed OSIX :-Q). Did Microport do
something to AT&T COFF that makes it different from original AT&T
specs?
The DWB executables for SV/AT are NOT in COFF format, but in some funny
Intel semi compatible format. I don't remember the name... You can find
it in the /etc/magic file of SV/AT. As far as I know, they are the only
applications ever to have appeared in that funny format.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukdave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (05/10/89)
In article <1989May5.060529.18967@telly.on.ca>, evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > I have been unsuccessful in attempts to make the Microport 286 DWB > work on my Enix 3.2 (now to be renamed OSIX :-Q). Did Microport do > something to AT&T COFF that makes it different from original AT&T > specs? > > Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario Although I have not tried this on Enix, the problem *may* be that as originally distributed the MP 286 DWB was in STL *not* COFF. This sucked in a big way as even Microport 386 didn't deal with STL. (To answer the next question, STL== Single Task Loadable, Intels binary "standard") Use file(1) to see for sure. File knows about STL 286. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll