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
> >
> >
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.