Fwd: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X - Plan9

This is a discussion on Fwd: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X - Plan9 ; Meant for this to go to 9fans. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Leimbach Date: Jan 10, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X To: Skip Tavakkolian On 1/10/07, David Leimbach wrote: > On ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Fwd: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X

  1. Fwd: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X

    Meant for this to go to 9fans.

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: David Leimbach
    Date: Jan 10, 2007 11:51 AM
    Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X
    To: Skip Tavakkolian


    On 1/10/07, David Leimbach wrote:
    > On 1/10/07, David Leimbach wrote:
    > > On 1/10/07, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
    > > > > ranlib: file: ../libmachdep.a(md5block.o) has no symbols
    > > > > ranlib: file: ../libmachdep.a(sha1block.o) has no symbols
    > > >
    > > > for your machine it should have picked posix-386 as machinedep.
    > > > was it able to build that library?
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > It did pick the 386 directory, and produced no symbols.
    > >
    > > sha1block.s is an empty file, same with md5block.s
    > >
    > > gcc -E uses the .spp files to produce these and comes up with nothing
    > > in the output.
    > >
    > > Dave
    > >

    > And the reason it has no output is because gcc on Apple thinks that
    > .spp or .sp files are linker input files, which will be ignored due to
    > the -E option, since linking isn't done.
    >
    > The following makefile change to the posix-386 directory fixes it:
    >
    > Index: Makefile
    > ================================================== =================
    > RCS file: /cvs/drawterm/posix-386/Makefile,v
    > retrieving revision 1.6
    > diff -u -r1.6 Makefile
    > --- Makefile 9 Jan 2007 22:17:21 -0000 1.6
    > +++ Makefile 10 Jan 2007 19:40:37 -0000
    > @@ -20,8 +20,8 @@
    > $(AS) -o $*.$O $*.s
    >
    > md5block.s: md5block.spp
    > - gcc -E md5block.spp >md5block.s
    > + cat md5block.spp | gcc -E - >md5block.s
    >
    > sha1block.s: sha1block.spp
    > - gcc -E sha1block.spp >sha1block.s
    > + cat sha1block.spp | gcc -E - >sha1block.s
    >


    Ok this patch seems to get me 100% compiled :-) I had to replace
    __Darwin__ with __APPLE__ because gcc doesn't set __Darwin__ anymore.

    And even after that, it behaves just as Andrey's binary did, it just
    gives me the "spinny beachball of doom" on Mac OS X that causes me to
    force quit.

    I suppose I'll have to break out the debug tools sometime.

    >8------------------------------->8


    Index: Makefile
    ================================================== =================
    RCS file: /cvs/drawterm/posix-386/Makefile,v
    retrieving revision 1.6
    diff -u -r1.6 Makefile
    --- Makefile 9 Jan 2007 22:17:21 -0000 1.6
    +++ Makefile 10 Jan 2007 19:48:58 -0000
    @@ -20,8 +20,8 @@
    $(AS) -o $*.$O $*.s

    md5block.s: md5block.spp
    - gcc -E md5block.spp >md5block.s
    + cat md5block.spp | gcc -E - >md5block.s

    sha1block.s: sha1block.spp
    - gcc -E sha1block.spp >sha1block.s
    + cat sha1block.spp | gcc -E - >sha1block.s

    Index: md5block.spp
    ================================================== =================
    RCS file: /cvs/drawterm/posix-386/md5block.spp,v
    retrieving revision 1.2
    diff -u -r1.2 md5block.spp
    --- md5block.spp 9 Jan 2007 22:17:21 -0000 1.2
    +++ md5block.spp 10 Jan 2007 19:48:58 -0000
    @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@
    .text

    .p2align 2,0x90
    -#ifdef __Darwin__
    +#ifdef __APPLE__
    .globl __md5block
    __md5block:
    #else
    Index: sha1block.spp
    ================================================== =================
    RCS file: /cvs/drawterm/posix-386/sha1block.spp,v
    retrieving revision 1.2
    diff -u -r1.2 sha1block.spp
    --- sha1block.spp 9 Jan 2007 22:17:21 -0000 1.2
    +++ sha1block.spp 10 Jan 2007 19:48:58 -0000
    @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
    .text

    .p2align 2,0x90
    -#ifdef __Darwin__
    +#ifdef __APPLE__
    .globl __sha1block
    __sha1block:
    #else

    8<-----------------8<

  2. Re: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X

    new binaries on 9grid fix a problem with the cat-tongued ibm mouse we
    all love and fixes del keys to send interrupts.

    russ has the diff so cvs is probably updated already.

    http://9grid.net/andrey/p9/drawterm-osx-intel.gz
    http://9grid.net/andrey/p9/drawterm-osx-power.gz

    russ, you're welcome to put them on swtch.com if you want.

  3. Re: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X

    Are these from the same CVS?

    On 1/11/07, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
    > new binaries on 9grid fix a problem with the cat-tongued ibm mouse we
    > all love and fixes del keys to send interrupts.
    >
    > russ has the diff so cvs is probably updated already.
    >
    > http://9grid.net/andrey/p9/drawterm-osx-intel.gz
    > http://9grid.net/andrey/p9/drawterm-osx-power.gz
    >
    > russ, you're welcome to put them on swtch.com if you want.
    >


  4. Re: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X

    I just found out my spinny beachball of doom goes away if I run as
    root vs running as a normal user... I wonder if my filesystem
    permissions are dorked up. I ran a ktrace on this and saw a ton of
    syscalls to sigprocmask...

    Dave

    On 1/11/07, David Leimbach wrote:
    > Are these from the same CVS?
    >
    > On 1/11/07, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
    > > new binaries on 9grid fix a problem with the cat-tongued ibm mouse we
    > > all love and fixes del keys to send interrupts.
    > >
    > > russ has the diff so cvs is probably updated already.
    > >
    > > http://9grid.net/andrey/p9/drawterm-osx-intel.gz
    > > http://9grid.net/andrey/p9/drawterm-osx-power.gz
    > >
    > > russ, you're welcome to put them on swtch.com if you want.
    > >

    >


  5. Re: [9fans] Re: request: native graphics on OS X

    yes, but the patch hasn't made it there yet (i just checked).
    everything else is the same.

    On 1/11/07, David Leimbach wrote:
    > Are these from the same CVS?
    >


+ Reply to Thread