[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::digital_unix

Title:DIGITAL UNIX(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEC OSF/1)
Notice:Welcome to the Digital UNIX Conference
Moderator:SMURF::DENHAM
Created:Thu Mar 16 1995
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:10068
Total number of notes:35879

9281.0. "xtaso_header_edit behavior in 4.0?" by HYDRA::BRYANT () Tue Mar 25 1997 12:15

I have a partner who played with this script in 3.2 and has some questions about
its functionality running on 4.0.  Any assistance here is certainly appreciated.
Thanks.
Pat Bryant
Software Partners Engineering

----------------------------------------------

We have a product running on Digital Unix that requires 32-bit pointer support.
It already works on V3.2, but we are upgrading to a new Digital Unix release.
In doing so, it is necessary for us to run our own (slightly modified) version
of xtaso_header_edit as described in the Programmer's Guide, Appendix A.

When I attempted to run this, it worked OK, but didn't modify all of the
requisit header files.  If you examine the script closely, you'll note it
processes the directory trees /usr/include and /sys/include, but doesn't
follow symbolic links.  Unfortunately, in going from V3.2 to V4.0 of Digital
Unix, /sys/include has become a symbolic link to /usr/sys/include, so the header
files in that directory don't get modified by xtaso_header_edit.

My questions:

	1.  Am I reading the manual incorrectly?

	2.  I can modify our version of xtaso_header_edit to handle both
	    versions of Digital Unix, but need to know whether /usr/include
	    and /usr/sys/include are sufficient on V4.0 or whether I should
	    also point it at some other directory?

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
9281.1DECCXL::MARIOTue Mar 25 1997 12:4319
The xtaso_header_edit script from the Programmer's guide was never really
a good solution to protect your system's header files.  And if it did work, 
it caused havoc with installupdate.

As a result, we've implemented a much cleaner solution in PTmin (V4.0D)
for protecting 64-bit system header files when xtaso is used.  This
requires upgrading to the version of DECC that will ship with PTmin and
enable a new protect_header feature.  The PTmin DECC should work fine on 
all V4.* releases.

Send mail offline if you're interested.

You're other choice is to have your customer modify his xtaso_header_edit
script to get it working.  Protecting everything under the /usr/include
directory tree should be sufficient.   If there are special project
header files where a 64-bit interface needs to be maintained, then the
script will need to be run against those directories as well.

Joe