usenet@carssdf.UUCP (John Watson) (11/30/90)
Has ANYONE got perl pl41 totally working on Xenix 2.3.x ? That is passed the tests (that is easy), and able to use perldb debugger without huge requests to malloc from afake, like 100meg or more. I have the Bernie Macchiusi fix in, and it did help. If so, how did you compile, did you use the same -O options on all the modules? Did you put in any -DMSC.. -DJUMPCLOBBER CRIPPLED etc...? After a couple of weeks, I am realy stuck. John Watson rutgers!carssdf!usenet
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (12/01/90)
usenet@carssdf.UUCP (John Watson) writes: > Has ANYONE got perl pl41 totally working on Xenix 2.3.x ? Totally ? What's that ? But yeah, I use PL41 on Xenix 2.3.x > the tests (that is easy) Yup > and able to use perldb debugger without huge > requests to malloc from afake, like 100meg or more. Never did learn the debugger, but it *seems* to work ... > I have the Bernie Macchiusi fix in, and it did help. What's that ? > If so, how did you compile, did you use the same -O options on all the > modules? Did you put in any -DMSC.. -DJUMPCLOBBER CRIPPLED etc...? I used gcc -O -fpcc-struct-return. Anyone who uses MSC's gotta be completely out of their minds unless they 1) need MS-DOG compatibility or 2) are masochists or 3) are using Xenix-86 or Xenix-286. Oh, and I used the perl-supplied malloc. Actually, now that ndbm.c is on uunet, I think maybe I'll use that and forget the -fpcc-struct-return. Perl would be so much more useful with ndbm -- Larry, why not just include it in the distribution (optional for those who *need* dbm binary data compatibility)? Then we can all use ndbm features and *expect* our perl scripts to be portable :-) -- ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) (12/02/90)
In message <270@carssdf.UUCP>, usenet@carssdf.UUCP (John Watson) writes: > > Has ANYONE got perl pl41 totally working on Xenix 2.3.x? I snarfed a clean copy of 41 from JPL (my old version was so hacked for Xenix), and surprise, surprise, it just dropped in. Nothing special except the yacc switch documented in the notes. This is with the 2.3.2 OS and the 2.3.0 development system. In message <1990Nov30.202510.23438@robobar.co.uk>, ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: > > I used gcc -O -fpcc-struct-return. Anyone who uses MSC's gotta be > completely out of their minds unless they 1) need MS-DOG compatibility > or 2) are masochists or 3) are using Xenix-86 or Xenix-286. Well, I'd like to comment on this, but obviously I have to take some time off to get back into my mind. -- Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (12/03/90)
[ this has nothing to do with perl anymore, but just contains an apology. Please edit followups as appropriate -- I've redirected them into outer space ] tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) writes: In message <1990Nov30.202510.23438@robobar.co.uk> I wrote, rather carelessly: > > I used gcc -O -fpcc-struct-return. Anyone who uses MSC's gotta be > > completely out of their minds unless they 1) need MS-DOG compatibility > > or 2) are masochists or 3) are using Xenix-86 or Xenix-286. > Well, I'd like to comment on this, but obviously I have to take some time > off to get back into my mind. Eh... I didn't *intend* to insult anyone, but it looks like I have. It *was* meant to be half humorous, but I guess reading it again, it doesn't sound it. Please accept my apologies. Seriously though, gcc does compile net.sources a whole lot more cleanly than MSC does, and often more correctly (witness MSC's silent but devastating miscompilation of C News's dbz.c when -O is switched on. Reduction of error messages to those that actually *mean* something does help me tremendously. Binaries of GCC precompiled for Xenix 386 with native support for Microsoft's version of Intel OMF (Xenix .o file format, so no messing about with libc.a required, and there's a GDB binary in the tarfile too) are available for ftp from various places including unix.secs.oakland.edu, so it's not that much of a hassle to install gcc on a 386 Xenix box. But I should have not sounded like that. Apologies are therefore in order to Tony and anyone else who was similarly offended. Sorry. -- ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
usenet@carssdf.UUCP (John Watson) (12/03/90)
> In message <270@carssdf.UUCP>, usenet@carssdf.UUCP (John Watson) writes: > > Has ANYONE got perl pl41 totally working on Xenix 2.3.x? Thanks to those who replied, I got it working. with yacc -sM12000 of course, and -O. I also used -Zp2 for the benefit of included usersubs, which if applied consistently works ok too. Also I used perl's malloc. John Watson
tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) (12/03/90)
In message <1990Dec2.194050.7680@robobar.co.uk>, ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: > > Eh... I didn't *intend* to insult anyone, but it looks like I have. > It *was* meant to be half humorous, but I guess reading it again, > it doesn't sound it. Please accept my apologies. Seriously though, > gcc does compile net.sources a whole lot more cleanly than MSC does, > and often more correctly... No, I apologize for making you feel that you had insulted anyone, for not only were you not insulting but I agree with you! That's why I said I was surprised when 41 just dropped in. I too have had difficulty with MSC before. Although, when I did some Xenix 286 development work, I came away feeling that all developers should have to use it. If you can make it run there, you can make it run anywhere. So, since each of us probably should have used a distasteful but useful smiley on those last two postings, here's three: ;-) ;-) ;-) Those of us of British descent who apologize all the time (it's been rumoured to be the national sport of Canada) now return you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup... -- Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony