[9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Don Bailey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 273 bytes --]

Hi All,

Looks like a change in libc/port/runebase.c is breaking builds. Does anyone
have a quick fix? Looks like the issue isn't specific to a particular
compiler, but illegal runes in the runebase.c file.

runebase.c:1255 illegal rune in string
...

Thanks,
D

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 397 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[erik quanstrom]

On Sun Jan 18 15:19:46 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Looks like a change in libc/port/runebase.c is breaking builds. Does anyone
> have a quick fix? Looks like the issue isn't specific to a particular
> compiler, but illegal runes in the runebase.c file.
>
> runebase.c:1255 illegal rune in string

the compiler needs to be updated before recompiling libc

- erik

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Don Bailey]

The build scripts should probably address this so people that haven't updated in a while aren't spinning wheels. 

Thanks.



> On Jan 18, 2015, at 9:01 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun Jan 18 15:19:46 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Looks like a change in libc/port/runebase.c is breaking builds. Does anyone
>> have a quick fix? Looks like the issue isn't specific to a particular
>> compiler, but illegal runes in the runebase.c file.
>> 
>> runebase.c:1255 illegal rune in string
> 
> the compiler needs to be updated before recompiling libc
> 
> - erik
> 

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[erik quanstrom]

On Sun Jan 18 20:10:38 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:
> The build scripts should probably address this so people that haven't updated in a while aren't spinning wheels.
>

maybe, but libc was changed in 2013, so, even gentoo doesn't handle this case.

- erik

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Don Bailey]

So this issue is clearly documented somewhere that people can catch up quickly?



> On Jan 18, 2015, at 9:14 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun Jan 18 20:10:38 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:
>> The build scripts should probably address this so people that haven't updated in a while aren't spinning wheels.
> 
> maybe, but libc was changed in 2013, so, even gentoo doesn't handle this case.
> 
> - erik
> 

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[erik quanstrom]

On Sun Jan 18 21:05:02 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:
> So this issue is clearly documented somewhere that people can catch up quickly?
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 2015, at 9:14 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun Jan 18 20:10:38 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The build scripts should probably address this so people that haven't updated in a while aren't spinning wheels.
> >
> > maybe, but libc was changed in 2013, so, even gentoo doesn't handle this case.

i don't follow.  pull from sources doesn't compile anything.  did you update by hand?
if so, why would hand-update be well-documented.  by definition, one would think that
it couldn't be.  (since every hand update is different.)

- erik

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Don Bailey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1329 bytes --]

This will be the last email I send regarding this issue as I have no
interest in getting into a long drawn-out 9fans-style discussion.

I upgraded via pull, then `{cd /sys/src/; mk objtype='amd64' install};
which broke at libc. If the issue is the compilers not being built first,
maybe it could be documented on the wiki that they need to be built first,
otherwise odd errors would occur during a world-build.

Thanks.

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:16 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
wrote:

> On Sun Jan 18 21:05:02 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:
> > So this issue is clearly documented somewhere that people can catch up
> quickly?
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 18, 2015, at 9:14 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun Jan 18 20:10:38 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> The build scripts should probably address this so people that haven't
> updated in a while aren't spinning wheels.
> > >
> > > maybe, but libc was changed in 2013, so, even gentoo doesn't handle
> this case.
>
> i don't follow.  pull from sources doesn't compile anything.  did you
> update by hand?
> if so, why would hand-update be well-documented.  by definition, one would
> think that
> it couldn't be.  (since every hand update is different.)
>
> - erik
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2012 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[erik quanstrom]

On Sun Jan 18 21:36:26 PST 2015, don.bailey@gmail.com wrote:

> This will be the last email I send regarding this issue as I have no
> interest in getting into a long drawn-out 9fans-style discussion.
>
> I upgraded via pull, then `{cd /sys/src/; mk objtype='amd64' install};
> which broke at libc. If the issue is the compilers not being built first,
> maybe it could be documented on the wiki that they need to be built first,
> otherwise odd errors would occur during a world-build.

sorry if that came off snarky.  i am however thinking that it's more likely
a build error on sources, or other snafu rather than something that is
a systematic issue.

and assuming that you were running on 386
so there are executables to pull, it sounds like the error
was that the correct executables were not built.
do your 386/6[acl] dates and sums match sources?

do you think that could be it?  if so, it sounds like 6[acl] need to rebuilt on
sources.

- erik

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Bakul Shah]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 22:09:02 MST Don Bailey <don.bailey@gmail.com> wrote:
> So this issue is clearly documented somewhere that people can catch up quickly?

>From an old message by David du Colombier:

1. remove runebase from /sys/src/libc/port/mkfile
2. cd /sys/src/libc && mk install && mk clean
3. for(i in /sys/src/cmd/8?) {cd $i && mk install && mk clean}
4. add runebase in /sys/src/libc/port/mkfile
5. cd /sys/src/libc && mk install && mk clean
6. cd /sys/src && mk install && mk clean

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[David du Colombier]

> I upgraded via pull, then `{cd /sys/src/; mk objtype='amd64' install};
> which broke at libc. If the issue is the compilers not being built
> first, maybe it could be documented on the wiki that they need to be
> built first, otherwise odd errors would occur during a world-build.

Bell Labs doesn't distribute amd64 binaries. It seems
you are running a compiler built before the long rune
change (before May 2013), but the sources are more recent.

In this case, you need to re-bootstrap the compiler,
as described here:

http://9fans.net/archive/2013/05/81

Alternatively, you can simply recompile your amd64
binaries from a 386 machine, since the 386 binaries
on /n/sources are already up-to-date.

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Zbigniew Radosz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

Hi 9fans,

I also attempted to build amd64 version some time ago, and it failed in
libc. I gave up then, but since someone brought this up, let me ask my
question here.

Bell Labs doesn't distribute amd64 binaries. It seems
> you are running a compiler built before the long rune
> change (before May 2013), but the sources are more recent.
>
> In this case, you need to re-bootstrap the compiler,
> as described here:
>
> http://9fans.net/archive/2013/05/81
>

I followed this one and it solves the runebase problem, but libc build
still fails as there is no amd64 subdir in libc. Looks like the labs
version does not have amd64 code for libc. Is that correct? And is libc the
only missing part?

--
Zbigniew Radosz

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1141 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[David du Colombier]

> I followed this one and it solves the runebase problem, but libc build still
> fails as there is no amd64 subdir in libc. Looks like the labs version does
> not have amd64 code for libc. Is that correct? And is libc the only missing
> part?

Yes, some parts of the amd64 user space are missing in
the Bell Labs distribution. You have you apply these patches:

hget http://9legacy.org/9legacy/patch/amd64.diff | ape/patch -p0
hget http://9legacy.org/9legacy/patch/amd64-fix.diff | ape/patch -p0

Also, you have to create the sub-directories in /amd64/bin.

You can take a look to my notes available here:

http://9legacy.org/9legacy/doc/nix/usage

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Zbigniew Radosz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 596 bytes --]

>
> Yes, some parts of the amd64 user space are missing in
> the Bell Labs distribution. You have you apply these patches:
>
> hget http://9legacy.org/9legacy/patch/amd64.diff | ape/patch -p0
> hget http://9legacy.org/9legacy/patch/amd64-fix.diff | ape/patch -p0
>
> Also, you have to create the sub-directories in /amd64/bin.
>
> You can take a look to my notes available here:
>
> http://9legacy.org/9legacy/doc/nix/usage
>
>
Thanks David, that worked fine. Now I just need a 64-bit kernel :) I saw
the nix and 9k notes on 9legacy. I'll give it a shot.

--

Zbigniew Radosz

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1177 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[Quintile]

there are a few subdirectories that need to be created when you build the amd64 code for the first time. maybe it would be nice to have a /sys/lib/newobjtype script to help, but  if you just:

cd /sys/src
objtype=amd64 mk install

and create the directories as needed you should be ok

-Steve





On 20 Jan 2015, at 09:50, David du Colombier <0intro@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I followed this one and it solves the runebase problem, but libc build still
>> fails as there is no amd64 subdir in libc. Looks like the labs version does
>> not have amd64 code for libc. Is that correct? And is libc the only missing
>> part?
> 
> Yes, some parts of the amd64 user space are missing in
> the Bell Labs distribution. You have you apply these patches:
> 
> hget http://9legacy.org/9legacy/patch/amd64.diff | ape/patch -p0
> hget http://9legacy.org/9legacy/patch/amd64-fix.diff | ape/patch -p0
> 
> Also, you have to create the sub-directories in /amd64/bin.
> 
> You can take a look to my notes available here:
> 
> http://9legacy.org/9legacy/doc/nix/usage
> 
> -- 
> David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[erik quanstrom]

On Tue Jan 20 04:10:48 PST 2015, steve@quintile.net wrote:
> there are a few subdirectories that need to be created when you build the amd64 code for the first time. maybe it would be nice to have a /sys/lib/newobjtype script to help, but  if you just:
>
> cd /sys/src
> objtype=amd64 mk install
>
> and create the directories as needed you should be ok

objtype=amd64 cd $objtype/bin && mkdir -p ape auth aux bitsy dial disk fossil fs games ip ip/httpd ndb rune opc replica upas venti usb

we don't add arches very often, so i've just created the full set of directories in 9atom.

by the way, the default 9atom install is amd64.  so there's no need to convert.  it will
also build 386 and arm exes at install time, too.

- erik

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[lucio]

> mkdir -p ape auth aux bitsy dial disk fossil fs games ip ip/httpd ndb rune opc replica upas venti usb

Shouldn't this be in a "proto" file?

bin
	ape
	auth
	aux
	bitsy
	dial
	disk
	fossil
	fs
	games
	ip
		httpd
	ndb
	rune
	opc
	replica
	upas
	venti
	usb

Whenever my mind wonders off thinking about revision control in Plan
9, my first thought is how useful "proto" would be as a building block
for that and other applications.  Yet it very seldom gets any mention,
I really don't think it ought to be forgotten.

Lucio.

PS: Off topic, the last posting to comp.os.plan9 in Google seems to
date back to September 2013.  Am I the first to notice?

Re: [9fans] runebase breaking libs build

[erik quanstrom]

> Whenever my mind wonders off thinking about revision control in Plan
> 9, my first thought is how useful "proto" would be as a building block
> for that and other applications.  Yet it very seldom gets any mention,
> I really don't think it ought to be forgotten.

proto is how i build 9atom, so it's not like it's forgotten.  just more complicated.

- erik