Re: anyone know if this is true?

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Dave Olson]

It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.

That's just the *BASE* header files.

Dave Olson, Silicon Graphics   Guru and busybody at large
http://reality.sgi.com/olson   olson@sgi.com

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

>
>It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
>
Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.

I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
/usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

David Miller has a heavily patched working GNU linker that creates
Linux elf-32 binaries. He told me that it should be easy to
make it produce native IRIX binaries. As for the crt[1n].o files
I really hope they are not a problem to give away.

>That's just the *BASE* header files.
>
This is correct. From the point of view of the original complaint
Is not enough.

-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

>
>It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
>
Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.

I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
/usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

David Miller has a heavily patched working GNU linker that creates
Linux elf-32 binaries. He told me that it should be easy to
make it produce native IRIX binaries. As for the crt[1n].o files
I really hope they are not a problem to give away.

>That's just the *BASE* header files.
>
This is correct. From the point of view of the original complaint
Is not enough.

-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[William J. Earl]

Ariel Faigon writes:
 > >
 > >It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
 > >
 > Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
 > Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
 > subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.
 > 
 > I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
 > they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
 > any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
 > /usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

     Those files are included only in dev.sw.lib, not in irix.sw.irix_lib.
I agree that they should be in the latter.  

     ld is shipped in compiler_eoe.sw.lboot, but it is located under
/usr/cpu/sysgen/root/usr/bin/.  

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[William J. Earl]

Ariel Faigon writes:
 > >
 > >It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
 > >
 > Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
 > Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
 > subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.
 > 
 > I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
 > they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
 > any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
 > /usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

     Those files are included only in dev.sw.lib, not in irix.sw.irix_lib.
I agree that they should be in the latter.  

     ld is shipped in compiler_eoe.sw.lboot, but it is located under
/usr/cpu/sysgen/root/usr/bin/.  

anyone know if this is true?

[Larry McVoy]

If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
facts.  Sounds like we're getting bad press.

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
From:    Michael Tiemann <tiemann@cygnus.com>
To:      lm@sgi.com
Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II

Is this not fixed in 6.2?  I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
part of the std 6.2 release.

    From: jon@vcnet.com (Jon Rust)
    Subject: gcc part II
    Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.apps
    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
    Organization: IAVC
    Path: cygnus.com!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net
!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.vcnet.com!jon.vc.net!user
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <jon-1706962225340001@jon.vc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jon.vc.net
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4

    Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.

    You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
    SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?

    **If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
    chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
    I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
    days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
    other UNIX platform here].

    If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
    gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...

    pissed off with no build capability,
    jon

    --------------------------------------------------------
    Jon Rust
    Internet Access of Ventura County
    jon@vc.net        http://www.vc.net         805.383.3500

I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
fixed than the library/header problem.

Michael

------- End of Forwarded Message

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

Sadly, it *is* true.  I guess many more 6.2 pissed off customers
are waiting down the pipeline.

We can solve it by getting David Miller's development environment
packaged as freeware, (it includes a GNU linker that works)
and put it (really quick) outside the firewall for whoever
is interested.

	1) Someone with a couple of days of time needs to take this
	   and just do it. I was planning on it, but I need
	   another week or so to start.

	2) I'm afraid we'll need to add crt[1n].o as binaries
	   as these are *not* shipped with the headers and libraries
	   of 6.2

Any comments, objections from anyone (especially for step 2) ?


>
>If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
>facts.  Sounds like we're getting bad press.
>
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>Date:    Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
>From:    Michael Tiemann <tiemann@cygnus.com>
>To:      lm@sgi.com
>Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II
>
>Is this not fixed in 6.2?  I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
>it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
>part of the std 6.2 release.
>
>    From: jon@vcnet.com (Jon Rust)
>    Subject: gcc part II
>    Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.apps
>    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
>    Organization: IAVC
>    Path: cygnus.com!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net
>!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.vcnet.com!jon.vc.net!user
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <jon-1706962225340001@jon.vc.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: jon.vc.net
>X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4
>
>    Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.
>
>    You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
>    SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?
>
>    **If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
>    chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
>    I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
>    days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
>    other UNIX platform here].
>
>    If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
>    gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...
>
>    pissed off with no build capability,
>    jon
>
>    --------------------------------------------------------
>    Jon Rust
>    Internet Access of Ventura County
>    jon@vc.net        http://www.vc.net         805.383.3500
>
>I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
>fixed than the library/header problem.
>
>Michael
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>


-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

Sadly, it *is* true.  I guess many more 6.2 pissed off customers
are waiting down the pipeline.

We can solve it by getting David Miller's development environment
packaged as freeware, (it includes a GNU linker that works)
and put it (really quick) outside the firewall for whoever
is interested.

	1) Someone with a couple of days of time needs to take this
	   and just do it. I was planning on it, but I need
	   another week or so to start.

	2) I'm afraid we'll need to add crt[1n].o as binaries
	   as these are *not* shipped with the headers and libraries
	   of 6.2

Any comments, objections from anyone (especially for step 2) ?


>
>If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
>facts.  Sounds like we're getting bad press.
>
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>Date:    Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
>From:    Michael Tiemann <tiemann@cygnus.com>
>To:      lm@sgi.com
>Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II
>
>Is this not fixed in 6.2?  I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
>it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
>part of the std 6.2 release.
>
>    From: jon@vcnet.com (Jon Rust)
>    Subject: gcc part II
>    Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.apps
>    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
>    Organization: IAVC
>    Path: cygnus.com!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net
>!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.vcnet.com!jon.vc.net!user
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <jon-1706962225340001@jon.vc.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: jon.vc.net
>X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4
>
>    Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.
>
>    You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
>    SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?
>
>    **If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
>    chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
>    I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
>    days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
>    other UNIX platform here].
>
>    If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
>    gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...
>
>    pissed off with no build capability,
>    jon
>
>    --------------------------------------------------------
>    Jon Rust
>    Internet Access of Ventura County
>    jon@vc.net        http://www.vc.net         805.383.3500
>
>I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
>fixed than the library/header problem.
>
>Michael
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>


-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Michael Tiemann]

Hey Ariel, good to hear from you!

It sounds to me like (1) SGI intended to make GCC a viable freeware
option for Irix 6.2, (2) the support in 6.2 is not quite right, due to
slight technical problems.  If I understand this correctly, then I think
it won't be too hard to fix the PR-related issues, and I'll be happy to
chime in our support for the intended solution (whatever it may be).

If SGI isn't committing to supplying a reasonable foundation to GNU (w/o
ProDev or IDO), then that's another story.

Michael

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Michael Tiemann]

Hey Ariel, good to hear from you!

It sounds to me like (1) SGI intended to make GCC a viable freeware
option for Irix 6.2, (2) the support in 6.2 is not quite right, due to
slight technical problems.  If I understand this correctly, then I think
it won't be too hard to fix the PR-related issues, and I'll be happy to
chime in our support for the intended solution (whatever it may be).

If SGI isn't committing to supplying a reasonable foundation to GNU (w/o
ProDev or IDO), then that's another story.

Michael

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Donna Yobs]

You do get the basics with eoe:

versions long eoe.hdr.lib

shows what hdrs are on basic irix
versions long eoe.hdr.lib|wc
           283          1415         17711


both are default:
eoe.hdr.lib [d]
compiler_eoe.hdr.lib [d]



-- 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Donna Derby Yobs        Silicon Graphics -  NSD         yobs@engr.sgi.com
			 Product Marketing