Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks - OS2

This is a discussion on Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks - OS2 ; On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:10:00 UTC, "Ruediger Ihle" wrote: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:28:37 UTC, Franz Bakan > wrote: > > > By default but not always. There is a documented way to use the > > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

  1. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:10:00 UTC, "Ruediger Ihle"
    wrote:

    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:28:37 UTC, Franz Bakan
    > wrote:
    >
    > > By default but not always. There is a documented way to use the
    > > old IP-stack. You have to define TCPV40HDRS and add this line
    > >
    > > ....
    > >

    >
    >
    > Ahh! So someone was listening to my complaints at Warpstock
    > Europe 2006 ;-).
    >
    > I'm wondering, how many programmers know about this...


    I know about it - but many ports use functions that are only present
    in the 32bit stack - so it's 'simpler' to default to the 32bit stack.
    I've had very few complaints about apps not working on the 16bit
    stack.

    --
    Cheers,

    Paul.

  2. A really stupid question.

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:27:05 -0000, Paul Smedley wrote:

    >On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:10:00 UTC, "Ruediger Ihle"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:28:37 UTC, Franz Bakan
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > By default but not always. There is a documented way to use the
    >> > old IP-stack. You have to define TCPV40HDRS and add this line
    >> >
    >> > ....
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> Ahh! So someone was listening to my complaints at Warpstock
    >> Europe 2006 ;-).
    >>
    >> I'm wondering, how many programmers know about this...

    >
    >I know about it - but many ports use functions that are only present
    >in the 32bit stack - so it's 'simpler' to default to the 32bit stack.
    >I've had very few complaints about apps not working on the 16bit
    >stack.
    >
    >--
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Paul.
    >


    A really stupid question:
    Beyond the basic mental masterbation of the advantages, what is the
    practical difference between the 16bit version and 32 bit version?

    ie. How many people are cannot run TCPIP/32, are what 16 bit function
    calls are not supported? How much work is it to convert to CSET
    application to 32 bit? Does it make sense to speed up a keyboard
    processing routine, once it can handle 300 wpm of input?

    ------------------
    E360Insight gets sued for spamming.
    Ain't irony wonderful?
    http://www.calspam.com



  3. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    On 11/11/07 06:28 am, Franz Bakan wrote:
    >
    >> AFAIK, GCC 3.x together with Knut's LIBC offers a way to build
    >> TCP/IP apps without using the OS/2 toolkit. While this simplifies
    >> porting Unix apps, the downside is that result of this approach
    >> will always require the 32bit IP-stack.

    >
    > By default but not always. There is a documented way to use the
    > old IP-stack. You have to define TCPV40HDRS and add this line
    >
    > call EnvAddFront fRM, 'LIBRARY_PATH', sGCCForw'/lib/tcpipv4'
    >

    Just to be certain I understand correctly, this allows both tcpip stacks
    in a program?

    --
    jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
    (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

  4. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    On 2007-11-13, Jim Moe wrote:
    > On 11/11/07 06:28 am, Franz Bakan wrote:
    >>
    >>> AFAIK, GCC 3.x together with Knut's LIBC offers a way to build
    >>> TCP/IP apps without using the OS/2 toolkit. While this simplifies
    >>> porting Unix apps, the downside is that result of this approach
    >>> will always require the 32bit IP-stack.

    >>
    >> By default but not always. There is a documented way to use the
    >> old IP-stack. You have to define TCPV40HDRS and add this line
    >>
    >> call EnvAddFront fRM, 'LIBRARY_PATH', sGCCForw'/lib/tcpipv4'
    >>

    > Just to be certain I understand correctly, this allows both tcpip stacks
    > in a program?



    I don't know, this is from the ReleaseNotes of gcc335:


    X:\Dev\gcc\335csd3\usr\doc\GCC-3.3.5\ReleaseNotes.os2

    ....
    v3.2.2 Alpha 2:
    ---------------

    A few bugfixes and a couple of new features.

    o The TCP/IP headers and libraries scheme have been changed.
    The default is the current OS/2 tcpip toolkit (BSD 4.4 based).
    To target the older OS/2 tcpip stack (BSD 4.3 based) you must
    define TCPV40HDRS before including any TCP/IP headers and make
    sure usr/lib/tcpipv4 is searched before usr/lib (this is to
    get the right libsocket). It is recommended to use the -D
    compiler option for the define and either the LIBRARY_PATH or
    the -L compiler/linker option for the library.
    ....


    Franz

  5. Re: A really stupid question.

    Bill Silverstein wrote:
    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:27:05 -0000, Paul Smedley wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:10:00 UTC, "Ruediger Ihle"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:28:37 UTC, Franz Bakan
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>By default but not always. There is a documented way to use the
    >>>>old IP-stack. You have to define TCPV40HDRS and add this line
    >>>>
    >>>>....
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Ahh! So someone was listening to my complaints at Warpstock
    >>>Europe 2006 ;-).
    >>>
    >>>I'm wondering, how many programmers know about this...

    >>
    >>I know about it - but many ports use functions that are only present
    >>in the 32bit stack - so it's 'simpler' to default to the 32bit stack.
    >>I've had very few complaints about apps not working on the 16bit
    >>stack.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Cheers,
    >>
    >>Paul.
    >>

    >
    >
    > A really stupid question:
    > Beyond the basic mental masterbation of the advantages, what is the
    > practical difference between the 16bit version and 32 bit version?
    >
    > ie. How many people are cannot run TCPIP/32, are what 16 bit function
    > calls are not supported? How much work is it to convert to CSET
    > application to 32 bit? Does it make sense to speed up a keyboard
    > processing routine, once it can handle 300 wpm of input?
    >


    I believe the 32-bit stack was a passport advantage option. Most people
    running Warp 4 don't have it. I was wondering how much work it would be
    to port a current BSD stack to Warp...


  6. Re: A really stupid question.

    Sir:

    Peter Flass wrote:
    > Bill Silverstein wrote:


    >> A really stupid question:
    >> Beyond the basic mental masterbation of the advantages, what is the
    >> practical difference between the 16bit version and 32 bit version?
    >> ie. How many people are cannot run TCPIP/32, are what 16 bit function
    >> calls are not supported? How much work is it to convert to CSET
    >> application to 32 bit? Does it make sense to speed up a keyboard
    >> processing routine, once it can handle 300 wpm of input?

    >
    > I believe the 32-bit stack was a passport advantage option. Most people
    > running Warp 4 don't have it. I was wondering how much work it would be
    > to port a current BSD stack to Warp...
    >

    Whoops, wrong. Most people who have the 16-bit tcpip can update to the
    32-bit tcpip stack. Since the only authorized tcpip shipped with OS/2
    were the versions with Warp Connect and Warp 4. Sadly, those who
    purchased tcpip 2.0 for Warp or OS/2 2.0 are not eligible for the free
    upgrade (but who is looking?). See
    for details. The free version
    is IBM's TCP/IP version 4.21, not the TCP/IP 4.3 that is in eCS or MCP.
    (Note that IBM version numbers have no relation to BSD version numbers.)

    There is no current up to date BSD stack. Existing BSD stack is nearly
    eight years out of date, though the maintainers tend to disagree (About
    as bad off as OS/2 port of it). They suffer a lack of volunteers to
    maintain it (and the IETF publishes about 300 RFCs per year/half affects
    the stack) and the fact that it, the code base, is a bowl of spaghetti.
    To write an up to date stack would require a complete rewrite of TCP/IP
    from first principles to conform with current programming standards.
    Such an effort would require about 100 persons working three years. You
    got a few million (pounds, euros, dollars, etc) in cash?
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!

  7. Re: A really stupid question.

    Bill Silverstein wrote:
    > A really stupid question:
    > Beyond the basic mental masterbation of the advantages, what is the
    > practical difference between the 16bit version and 32 bit version?
    >
    > ie. How many people are cannot run TCPIP/32, are what 16 bit function
    > calls are not supported? How much work is it to convert to CSET
    > application to 32 bit? Does it make sense to speed up a keyboard
    > processing routine, once it can handle 300 wpm of input?


    One of the major improvements in the 32-bit stack is the ability to
    transfer a large amount of data without a copy operation. For the
    16-bit stack, the data had to be copied and this can slow down the
    transfer significantly if you are moving a lot of data. Your software
    has to be coded to use this new API to take advantage of it, however.
    Simply using the standard BSD interface won't take advantage of this to
    my knowledge. (I'm sure someone who knows more will correct me on the
    subject if I'm wrong.)

    --
    [Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]

  8. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Ruediger Ihle
    ], who wrote in article :
    > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:29:38 UTC, Ilya Zakharevich
    > wrote:
    >
    > > EMX maps POSIX API to "16-bit API" (and maps it more or less
    > > "trivially").

    >
    > AFAIK, EMX uses a NetBSD-conform TCP/IP implementation, which
    > happens to be of the same version level from which OS/2's 16bit
    > IP-stack is derived from. That's why this mapping is so trivial.
    >
    > Now, in order not to just call OS/2's 32bit IP-stack (which is
    > based on a newer BSD version), but to take advantage of new
    > features, the EMX headers would have to be changed to BSD4.4
    > (or so) level. Now the translation to the 32bit IP-stack would
    > be as trivial, as it is now for the 16bit stack. But that doesn't
    > help much. What we would need also is a runtime API translation
    > from BSD4.4 to BSD4.3, in case the newer IP-stack is not available
    > on a particular system. But a translation from the higher to the
    > lower version level is not 100% doable without loosing something.
    > And I'm not sure if that could be made transparent to the
    > application.


    There is no *need* to switch headers to bsd4.4. Then the translation
    layer is going in the opposite direction.

    Right now I can't continue in any intelligent fashion, since I can't
    find bsd4.4 tcp/ip headers to compare them with bsd4.3 (e.g., EMX)...
    So (at least for a while ;-) consider your arguments about the
    complexity of translation bsd4.3 --> bsd4.4. ;-)

    Thanks,
    Ilya

  9. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:29:15 UTC, Jim Moe
    wrote:

    > Just to be certain I understand correctly, this allows both tcpip stacks
    > in a program?


    I'd say yes.


    --
    Ruediger "Rudi" Ihle [S&T Systemtechnik GmbH, Germany]
    http://www.s-t.de
    Please remove all characters left of the "R" in my email address


  10. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:27:05 UTC, "Paul Smedley"
    wrote:

    > I've had very few complaints about apps not working on the 16bit
    > stack.


    Many users seem top have upgraded. But I'm still reluctant to do
    that on my about 10 machines running W4/FP15.

    Many of the programms in question were not too important to me,
    so I didn't bother to complain about all of them...


    --
    Ruediger "Rudi" Ihle [S&T Systemtechnik GmbH, Germany]
    http://www.s-t.de
    Please remove all characters left of the "R" in my email address


  11. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    > Right now I can't continue in any intelligent fashion, since I can't
    > find bsd4.4 tcp/ip headers to compare them with bsd4.3 (e.g., EMX)...
    > So (at least for a while ;-) consider your arguments about the
    > complexity of translation bsd4.3 --> bsd4.4. ;-)


    Instead of insisting that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, why
    don't you have a look at the 2 different versions of the OS/2 TCP/IP
    Programming handbooks (the one listing the BSD 4.3 compliant stack and the
    one listing the BSD 4.4 compliant stack) ?


    Lars



  12. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    If by "both" you mean "either one", then yes, that's what it says below.

    Lars

    "Jim Moe" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:wvqdnVZCg6VmcaTanZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    > On 11/11/07 06:28 am, Franz Bakan wrote:
    >>
    >>> AFAIK, GCC 3.x together with Knut's LIBC offers a way to build
    >>> TCP/IP apps without using the OS/2 toolkit. While this simplifies
    >>> porting Unix apps, the downside is that result of this approach
    >>> will always require the 32bit IP-stack.

    >>
    >> By default but not always. There is a documented way to use the
    >> old IP-stack. You have to define TCPV40HDRS and add this line
    >>
    >> call EnvAddFront fRM, 'LIBRARY_PATH', sGCCForw'/lib/tcpipv4'
    >>

    > Just to be certain I understand correctly, this allows both tcpip stacks
    > in a program?
    >
    > --
    > jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
    > (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)




  13. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Lars Erdmann
    ], who wrote in article <473e8f41$0$13123$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>:
    > > Right now I can't continue in any intelligent fashion, since I can't
    > > find bsd4.4 tcp/ip headers to compare them with bsd4.3 (e.g., EMX)...
    > > So (at least for a while ;-) consider your arguments about the
    > > complexity of translation bsd4.3 --> bsd4.4. ;-)


    > Instead of insisting that you are correct and everyone else is wrong


    My impression was that I was doing almost exactly the opposite. ;-)

    > don't you have a look at the 2 different versions of the OS/2 TCP/IP
    > Programming handbooks (the one listing the BSD 4.3 compliant stack and the
    > one listing the BSD 4.4 compliant stack) ?


    Did you ever tried to compare two .inf documents?

    Ilya

  14. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    On 17.11.07 08:39, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

    > Did you ever tried to compare two .inf documents?


    BTW: After converting both INF into text files (assuming they're not
    completely different), it's possible. I got very good results with
    that (haven't tried the INF files you've mentioned): I wrote an INF to
    HyperText/2 compiler, that will be released probably soon. A
    preliminary version is available on demand.

    --
    Andreas Schnellbacher

  15. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    >
    > Did you ever tried to compare two .inf documents?


    Yes, by reading them.

  16. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Lars Erdmann
    ], who wrote in article <4740013c$0$4372$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>:

    > > Did you ever tried to compare two .inf documents?


    > Yes, by reading them.


    Thanks, but no, thanks. I would prefer .h files.

    Yours,
    Ilya

  17. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    Ilya Zakharevich schrieb:
    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > Lars Erdmann
    > ], who wrote in article <4740013c$0$4372$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>:
    >
    >>> Did you ever tried to compare two .inf documents?

    >
    >> Yes, by reading them.

    >
    > Thanks, but no, thanks. I would prefer .h files.


    Good, then have a look at the OS/2 Toolkit, latest version. They contain
    the 16-bit as well as the 32-bit header files. The distinction is
    controlled via the #ifdef TCPV40HDRS directive. The 16-bit headers are
    in STACK16 subdirectory.

    And quit sending me your replies to my home address. It's enough to have
    it here in the newsgroup.

    Lars

  18. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT sent to
    Lars Erdmann
    ], who wrote in article <474007ba$0$27131$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>:
    > Ilya Zakharevich schrieb:
    > > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > > Lars Erdmann
    > > ], who wrote in article <4740013c$0$4372$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>:
    > >
    > >>> Did you ever tried to compare two .inf documents?

    > >
    > >> Yes, by reading them.

    > >
    > > Thanks, but no, thanks. I would prefer .h files.

    >
    > Good, then have a look at the OS/2 Toolkit, latest version.


    Now we are back to square one! As I said, I do not have it.

    Thanks anyway,
    Ilya

  19. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
    Lars Erdmann
    ], who wrote in article <474007ba$0$27131$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>:

    Oups, my previous posting was (manually) garbled, and a copy was
    sent. Now the weedlist works...

    My apologies,
    Ilya



  20. Re: Building an app for both 16bit and 32bit TCPIP stacks

    On 11/18/07 04:00 pm, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT sent to
    > Lars Erdmann
    > ], who wrote in article <474007ba$0$27131$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>:
    >> Ilya Zakharevich schrieb:
    >>> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    >>> Lars Erdmann
    >>> ], who wrote in article <4740013c$0$4372$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>:
    >>>
    >>>>> Did you ever tried to compare two .inf documents?
    >>>> Yes, by reading them.
    >>> Thanks, but no, thanks. I would prefer .h files.

    >> Good, then have a look at the OS/2 Toolkit, latest version.

    >
    > Now we are back to square one! As I said, I do not have it.
    >
    > Thanks anyway,
    > Ilya


    http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/misc/wtu45201.zip
    Dave

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast