> You are blowing this out of proportion and not actually reading
> what people are proposing. So far, the comments are about
> removing a.out support from the base compiler and offering
> a.out binutils and gcc _as ports_.
A port is fine -- but this was proposed much later in the
thread.
> > U
* De: Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-09-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
> <
>said:
>
> > So they need a C compiler that can generate a.out format .o files, and
> > a linker that can link a.out format .o files against
<
said:
> So they need a C compiler that can generate a.out format .o files, and
> a linker that can link a.out format .o files against an a.out format
> executable.
Not necessarily. There is always `objcopy', at least for static
executables. The version we ship doesn't support any flavor of
< said:
> for Internet Explorer"). I would suggest to anybody still using
> Netscape 4 on a Unix platform that they try a replacement
> browser, whether that be Mozilla, Galeon, or something else
> (perhaps Opera or Konqueror).
Mozilla has an intolerable (read: Windows) user interface.
Konquero
On 04-Sep-2002 Richard Tobin wrote:
>> You are blowing this out of proportion and not actually reading
>> what people are proposing. So far, the comments are about
>> removing a.out support from the base compiler and offering
>> a.out binutils and gcc _as ports_.
>
> That would be sufficient fo
Michael WARDLE wrote:
> The Gecko engine developed by the Mozilla Project, however seems
> to be very good. I find Galeon quite nice, as it uses Mozilla's
> quite capable HTML rendering engine, has its own well designed
> GTK-based GUI, and has little of Mozilla's bloat.
If it isn't broken, don'
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > Isn't this too old and security-holed to use? It stopped being packaged a
> > few releases ago. 4.5R has mainly:
> >
> > /usr/local/lib/netscape-linux/communicator-linux-4.79.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB
>executable, Intel 80386, vers
> You are blowing this out of proportion and not actually reading
> what people are proposing. So far, the comments are about
> removing a.out support from the base compiler and offering
> a.out binutils and gcc _as ports_.
That would be sufficient for my needs (a matching gdb would be useful
to
Thus spake Michael WARDLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The Gecko engine developed by the Mozilla Project, however seems
> to be very good. I find Galeon quite nice, as it uses Mozilla's
> quite capable HTML rendering engine, has its own well designed
> GTK-based GUI, and has little of Mozilla's bloat.
> > Mozilla, Galeon, and other browsers claim to be better, but
> > often fail to provide features that have been in Netscape
> > for forever.
>
> You mean features like being stable, at least sometimes?
> Efficiency? IMO, Mozilla has features up the kazoo, but the
> developers seem unwilling to
Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mozilla, Galeon, and other browsers claim to be better, but
> often fail to provide features that have been in Netscape
> for forever.
You mean features like being stable, at least sometimes?
Efficiency? IMO, Mozilla has features up the kazoo, but
Bruce Evans wrote:
> Isn't this too old and security-holed to use? It stopped being packaged a
> few releases ago. 4.5R has mainly:
>
> /usr/local/lib/netscape-linux/communicator-linux-4.79.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB
>executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > > > Where exactly does GCC fit into the mix, making this impossible?
> > >
> > > They compile Lisp (etc) to a C file, which they compile (with gcc) to
> > ^^^
> > actually with as(1), because gcc
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <
>said:
>
> > As long as I can set things up so that a chroot to an environment full
> > of 2.2.6 binaries will still work, then I can still support
> > sites with embedded 2.2.6 based things..
> > Others may find this a requirement too.
>
> I think
On 03-Sep-2002 Bakul Shah wrote:
>> > > Where exactly does GCC fit into the mix, making this impossible?
>> >
>> > They compile Lisp (etc) to a C file, which they compile (with gcc) to
>> ^^^
>> actually with as(1), because gcc is only
> > > Where exactly does GCC fit into the mix, making this impossible?
> >
> > They compile Lisp (etc) to a C file, which they compile (with gcc) to
> ^^^
> actually with as(1), because gcc is only generates assembler file,
> which is
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 11:32:22PM +0100, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > > False. As I said, I have systems that read a.out format object files
> > > and they would need to be ported to read ELF object files instead.
>
> > > Furthermore, they write themselves out (after loading object files) in
> > >
> > False. As I said, I have systems that read a.out format object files
> > and they would need to be ported to read ELF object files instead.
> > Furthermore, they write themselves out (after loading object files) in
> > a.out format, and would need to be ported to write themselves out
> > in
* De: Richard Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-09-03 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
> > GCC being able to produce a.out format binaries has nothing to do with
> > the ability of a Lisp or Prolog to compile to object files,
>
> Correct.
>
< said:
> As long as I can set things up so that a chroot to an environment full
> of 2.2.6 binaries will still work, then I can still support
> sites with embedded 2.2.6 based things..
> Others may find this a requirement too.
I think more people probably care about this:
/usr/local/lib/netsca
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
> > > Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
> > > kan ar
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
> > > Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
> > > kan ar
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> >
> > This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
> > Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
> > kan are the only ones that it has inconvinced. Everyone else has
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:42:47PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > yes binary support will remain.. if you need to generate new ones (?)
> > unpack a 2.2.6 system into a chroot tree (jail?) and make it there :-)
>
> *sigh* This *still* isn't clear wha
> GCC being able to produce a.out format binaries has nothing to do with
> the ability of a Lisp or Prolog to compile to object files,
Correct.
> and read such, whether said object files be a.out or ELF or COFF or PECOFF or
> Mach-O or ...
False. As I said, I have systems that read a.out forma
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
> Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
> kan are the only ones that it has inconvinced. Everyone else has been
> able to totally ignore it. I'l
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:42:47PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > > I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
> > > 5.x. Am I wrong?
> >
> > We should be *very* careful to accurately describe
> * De: David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > > I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support
in
&g
* De: Richard Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
> > I think you're extremeley confused.
>
> In what way? Or are you just being rude?
GCC being able to produce a.out format binaries has nothing to do wit
> I think you're extremeley confused.
In what way? Or are you just being rude?
-- RIchard
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
* De: Richard Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
> > yes binary support will remain.. if you need to generate new ones (?)
>
> You say this as if no-one would want to do it, but I still use
> programs (lisp
> yes binary support will remain.. if you need to generate new ones (?)
You say this as if no-one would want to do it, but I still use
programs (lisp and prolog compilers) that need to generate and read in
compiled .o files, and "undump" themselves after reading in such
files, and which are never
* De: David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
> > 5.x.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
> > 5.x. Am I wrong?
>
> We should be *very* careful to accurately describe what is being
> suggested.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
> 5.x. Am I wrong?
We should be *very* careful to accurately describe what is being
suggested.
I believe it is that 5.x a.out binaries not be supported.
"David O'Brien" wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:29:05AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> > I think it should be turned off now. That will help shake out any issues
> > and people complaining that it is gone. The sooner the better.
>
> It isn't a simple knob to "turn it off". It requires several
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> > Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> > >
> > > > Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
> > > > Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
> > > >
> > > > >
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:29:05AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> I think it should be turned off now. That will help shake out any issues
> and people complaining that it is gone. The sooner the better.
It isn't a simple knob to "turn it off". It requires several source
changes.
To Unsubscribe:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:34:48AM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:09:11 +1000 (EST)
> Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Except I just used it to compile biosboot :-). (I had more problems
> > with ufs2 changes than with the compiler.)
> >
> > Actually, I
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:09:11 +1000 (EST)
Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Except I just used it to compile biosboot :-). (I had more problems
> with ufs2 changes than with the compiler.)
>
> Actually, I agree. Not having a clean break in FreeBSD-3 was very
> expensive. Support for ru
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> >
> > > Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
> > > Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
> > >
> > > > aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for comp
Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
>
> > Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
> > Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
> >
> > > aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
> > > some boot blocks), but is broken in gc
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
> Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
>
> > aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
> > some boot blocks), but is broken in gcc3 for at least compile-time
>
Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
> aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
> some boot blocks), but is broken in gcc3 for at least compile-time
Which boot blocks?
> assignments to long longs and
44 matches
Mail list logo
