Re: compat_bsdos
Jaromír Doleček <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.x86-64 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMnsW556oD3wUf9qQs3ByWxk=M4ZeM_Hsgqh4QL5GPDkqL6Ukg@mail.gmail.com> |
Run BSD/OS in an emulator then, e.g. inside QEMU. It's not really worth it to write nor maintain a kernel emulation for this, speed is clearly not your issue - it will be way faster than even under emulation than the original hw. Jaromir Le mar. 21 juil. 2020 à 20:01, Steve Blinkhorn <[email protected]> a écrit : > > This is for some retrospective analysis for academic publication. It's > all software I acquired long ago, compiled for BSD/OS without problem > after small tweaks to I/O channels. It's originally Fortran IV, and > comews from a number of highly reputable (in termws of code > portability) sources, such as Bell Labs. There seems to be no -f66 > option for f2c or fort77. In the process of failed compilation I see > some common issues: inconsistent calling sequences, where a subroutine > parametr has been translated to a real in one place and an integer in > another, recommendations to use non-existent options as a remedy, > complaints bout typing in general. > > The binary compatibilties were the thing that really attracted me to > NetBSD when BSDi folded. But they've let me down before - the Linux > compatibility have lagged behind what colleagues in other institutions were > working with, so I have from time to time to run a Linux box. > > -- > Steve Blinkhorn <[email protected]> > You wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2020, at 6:19 AM, Steve Blinkhorn <[email protected]> wrote: > > >=20 > > > I have suddenly discovered the absence of compat_bsdos, having just > > > completed the replacement of all our old x86 machines with amd64s. Is > > > it irretrievably lost? I have a mass of software compiled originally > > > for BSD/OS, and quail at the magnitude of the task of recompilation, > > > particularly since much of it has Fortran source, and f2c-f77 has got > > > fussier about common Fortran practices of old. The thought of fixing > > > the kinds of issues that may arise (I've tried one program, and it > > > hasn't been fun - it's still not working) does not fill me with > > > anticipatory pleasure. > > > > I can't imagine that it would be too much work. It should be pretty = > > similar to 4.3/4.4, and we have compat layers for those vintages on = > > various platforms. > > > > -- thorpej > > > > >