Re: Innotek libc license & release issues (was Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc)

Stefan Neis wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Andreas Buening wrote:
> 
> > > jep, I would say so. Can you give feedback to the list when you got
> > > something from Knut?
> >
> > Sure. Here it is:
> 
> Thanks for finding out some facts!

Some other questions:

-----------------------
Knut:

> I've no idea, for building it all, it requires the CVS version
> of GCC 3.2.2 usually. At least for OMF mode 3.2.2 is required.

Me:
Why? If it's based on emx and you use the same file names it should
even link with gcc 2.7.

Knut:
Aout, probably, OMF probably not. We changed the ABI for OMF, there may also be header
changes (_System) which isn't backward compatible.
To be honest I don't really care supporting anything but the latest GCC build.
If we reverse the question, if GCC 3.2.2 works with old EMX stuff. With a bit of work on
both environment setup, libraries, headers, and compiler spec file, yes. Only I'm not
going to do that.

Me:
But this is only related to the import libraries and the
emx dlls themselves, normal dlls written in C are compatible
upward and backward?

Knut:
They are, only you'll have to regenerate the OMF libraries.
Explanation:
      void foo();
      -> .globl _foo
Previosly emxomf stripped the underscore. For ABI compatability reasons
(VAC/Watcom/Watever OS/2 compiler) we have made that underscore-removing feature non
default.
This means that symbols in a.out and OMF object formats are identical.
Import libraries can easily be regenerated from the a.out library or from .def or .imp
file (which you may have to modify a bit).
-----------------------

Hope, this helps.


> > >This libc is based on glibc/bsd libc/emx/written from scratch.
> > It's based on the sys library of emx (license reasons).
> 
> That sys library originally was rather incomplete...
> I'm wondering what's going to happen to e.g. fork().

Does "sys" mean the -Zsys library? That one without fork() and
SIGCHLD?

[snip]


Bye,
Andreas