pim@ctisbv.UUCP (Pim Zandbergen) (12/27/88)
Hi Netland, Now that Unix and Xenix will merge together into Unix System V release 3.2. it will not matter (I suppose) whether you buy SCO, Interactive, AT&T or some other vendor's implementation. In either case, you will be able to run both Unix COFF binaries as well as Xenix binaries. But we as software developers will have to maintain production of both the Unix and Xenix versions of our application software. This is because not all customers will want to upgrade to either Xenix 2.3 or Unix 3.2 and 286 owners will never be able to. However, we would like to produce both versions on one machine. Currently, for the Intel processors, we are supporting a Xenix 286 and a Unix 386 version of our software. Will it be possible to produce Unix and Xenix binaries with Unix 3.2, or otherwise, is it possible to install the Microsoft Xenix compiler on Unix 3.2 ? Any hints are welcome. -- --------------------+------------------------------------+--------------------- Pim Zandbergen | CTI Software BV | Phone: +31 70 542302 pim@ctisbv.UUCP | Laan Copes van Cattenburch 70 | Fax: +31 70 512837 ..!mcvax!ctisbv!pim | 2585 GD The Hague, The Netherlands | Telex: 32133 CTI NL
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (12/28/88)
In article <616@ctisbv.UUCP> pim@ctisbv.UUCP (Pim Zandbergen) writes: ]Hi Netland, ] ]Now that Unix and Xenix will merge together into Unix System ]V release 3.2. it will not matter (I suppose) whether you buy ]SCO, Interactive, AT&T or some other vendor's implementation. ]In either case, you will be able to run both Unix COFF binaries ]as well as Xenix binaries. Whether the choice still matters depends on your preference as far as utilities are concerned (they are not identical) and their may be speed and reliability differences too. The different products supposedly run each others binaries, but you have to get them in order to try. ]But we as software developers will have to maintain production ]of both the Unix and Xenix versions of our application software. ]This is because not all customers will want to upgrade to either ]Xenix 2.3 or Unix 3.2 and 286 owners will never be able to. ]However, we would like to produce both versions on one machine. ]Currently, for the Intel processors, we are supporting a Xenix 286 ]and a Unix 386 version of our software. ] ]Will it be possible to produce Unix and Xenix binaries with Unix 3.2, ]or otherwise, is it possible to install the Microsoft Xenix compiler ]on Unix 3.2 ? In theory this should be very easy. You can create a directory tree, containing, say Xenix 286 on a Unix 3.2 machine. After logging in (as root) you chroot to the root of that tree and from then on you should get 100% identical Xenix behaviour except for speed differences. That is what my understanding of this binary compatibility is. In this isolated directory tree you could run the Xenix compiler (without messing around with filename problems), to generate Xenix binaries. Now, if this doesn't work, I would say that the talk about Unix and Xenix being binary compatible is just a bunch of lies. Has anyone tried this? Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (12/29/88)
In article <616@ctisbv.UUCP>, pim@ctisbv.UUCP (Pim Zandbergen) writes: > Now that Unix and Xenix will merge together into Unix System > V release 3.2. it will not matter (I suppose) whether you buy > SCO, Interactive, AT&T or some other vendor's implementation. > In either case, you will be able to run both Unix COFF binaries > as well as Xenix binaries. > > Will it be possible to produce Unix and Xenix binaries with Unix 3.2, > or otherwise, is it possible to install the Microsoft Xenix compiler > on Unix 3.2 ? > Given the statement that 3.2 will run both Xenix and Unix binaries, you could either install the Xenix compiler, loader, and libraries on 3.2, or the 3.2 compiler, loader, and libraries on the SCO Unix 3.2 system. Jonathan Bayer Intelligent Software Products, Inc. -- life used to be so simple.
md@sco.COM (Michael Davidson) (12/30/88)
In article <616@ctisbv.UUCP> pim@ctisbv.UUCP (Pim Zandbergen) writes: >Will it be possible to produce Unix and Xenix binaries with Unix 3.2, >or otherwise, is it possible to install the Microsoft Xenix compiler >on Unix 3.2 ? > The SCO release of UNIX 3.2 will include the Microsoft C compiler. In addition to supporting 386 COFF object and executable formats it will continue to be capable of creating binaries for existing Xenix systems (8086, 80286 and 80386) plus cross-development for both DOS and OS/2.
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (01/12/89)
< In theory this should be very easy. You can create a directory tree, < containing, say Xenix 286 on a Unix 3.2 machine. After logging in (as root) < you chroot to the root of that tree and from then on you should get < 100% identical Xenix behaviour except for speed differences. That is < what my understanding of this binary compatibility is. In this isolated < directory tree you could run the Xenix compiler (without messing around < with filename problems), to generate Xenix binaries. I used to do this when I worked at ISC, except that it was not a 3.2 machine, since those didn't exist yet. We did it on a 1.05 machine, since all that x286emul needs to run most 286 Xenix code is the kernel hooks that let x286emul get control when a system call is executed. The x286emul emulation is pretty good. It passes Microsoft's Xenix validation programs. That is, if you take these programs from a 286 Xenix system, and put them under such a chrooted environment, and run them just like you would to validate a 286 Xenix system, it will pass, except for certain tests that are not expected to pass. I don't recall exactly which tests will not pass, but they tended to be tests of the type where a real Xenix system would return the error ETXTBSY. Because of the way Xenix emulation works, the text is in fact not busy when a Xenix binary runs under x286emul. My memory is getting hazy here, and I may be confusing some details with i286emul, but I think that there will also be failures when execute-only programs are used. x286emul is a user mode program, and so it needs read permission on the Xenix binary to access it. I seem to recall some discussion of various ugly kludges to get around this, but I don't recall if they were used or not. Tim Smith