Very Computer

by **Tony Primaver** » Sun, 21 Apr 1996 04:00:00

HI,

Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
Any ideas?
--
Tony Primavera, Senior Consultant tele:
334-361-7806
ECCS Inc., 1 Sheila Dr., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 fax:
334-361-4059
High Availability Solutions (http://www.eccs.com) email:

by **BitKoeni** » Sun, 21 Apr 1996 04:00:00

|> The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
|> Any ideas?
Yep... use
#define bzero(a,b) memset(a,0,b)
#define bcopy(a,b,c) memcpy(b,a,c)

that solves the problem.

Mario

by **Borja Marco** » Sun, 21 Apr 1996 04:00:00

> HI,

> Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
> The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
> Any ideas?

Yes. (Anyway, are you sure you haven't found it?)

#define bzero(b,l) memset((b), '\0', (l))

--
***********************************************************************

48990 - Algorta (Vizcaya) * CompuServe: 100015,3502
SPAIN *
***********************************************************************

by **Mike Fischbe** » Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:00:00

: Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
: The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
: Any ideas?

bzero is in the libucb.a library; /usr/ucblib/libucb.a.
If you're porting to SysVish calls, a better way is
to use memset.

mike

--

Any opinions expressed are mine only, and not necessarily
those of any other entity. They may not even be mine.

by **Bennett To** » Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:00:00

Quote:>Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
>The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
>Any ideas?

Yeah; upgrade to Solaris 2.5. Among other niceties they finally abandoned that
stupid, gratuitous incompatibility with Unix.

2.5 is the first Solaris release that is actually an improvement on SunOS
4.x. Give it a look, even if you have abandoned anything named "Solaris 2" as
fundamentally flawed-by-design. This time they got it right. I've heard this
is the first one that the Solaris engineers were actually forced to run on
their own boxes, so they fixed many of the more egregiously stupid fuxups they
had simply ignored in previous releases.

In fact, if you take Solaris 2.5 right off the CD, eradicate the printer and
ttymon subsystems, replacing them with normal printing software (PLP, or the
Berkeley lpr/lpd system) and a nice simple getty like agetty, what's left is a
quite solid and pleasing Unix-like OS. Admittedly it has fewer features and
poorer performance than the _real_ competition, 4.4BSD and Linux, but for a
mere commercial Unix-like OS it no longer sucks.

-Bennett

by **T.E.Dick** » Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:00:00

: bzero is in the libucb.a library; /usr/ucblib/libucb.a.
: If you're porting to SysVish calls, a better way is
: to use memset.
right. libucb.a is (for all practical purposes) broken.

--
Thomas E.*ey

by **Elliott Hughe** » Wed, 24 Apr 1996 04:00:00

> Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
> The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
> Any ideas?

bzero fills an area of memory with 0 bytes. memset with the
second parameter 0 is an ANSI equivalent.

- enh

by **Jim Lars** » Wed, 24 Apr 1996 04:00:00

: HI,

: Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
: The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
: Any ideas?
: --
: Tony Primavera, Senior Consultant tele:
: 334-361-7806
: ECCS Inc., 1 Sheila Dr., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 fax:
: 334-361-4059
: High Availability Solutions (http://www.eccs.com) email:

Adding the -lucb library to your Makefile will also fix this on
Solaris I believe.

Jim

by **John Moy** » Wed, 24 Apr 1996 04:00:00

>HI,

>Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
>The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
>Any ideas?

Many of these things are fixed by
#include <X11/Xos.h>
#include <X11/Xfuncs.h>

This will do something similar to
#define bzero(b,len) memset(b,0,len)

I hope this helps.

John

>--
>Tony Primavera, Senior Consultant tele:
>334-361-7806
>ECCS Inc., 1 Sheila Dr., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 fax:
>334-361-4059
>High Availability Solutions (http://www.eccs.com) email:

--
John Moyer KC5GSX http://www.questconsult.com/~jrm/

P.O. Box 721387 (405) 329-7475
Norman, Oklahoma 73070-8069, USA Fax: (405) 329-7734

by **R. Stewart Ell** » Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:00:00

>>Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
>>The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
>>Any ideas?

>Yeah; upgrade to Solaris 2.5. Among other niceties they finally abandoned that
>stupid, gratuitous incompatibility with Unix.

SVR4 is UNIX. It is trivially easy to get bzero() and bcopy() functionality
in Solaris 2.(x<5): get the Solaris Porting FAQ. It will also warn you of
all sorts of other problems you might have if you insist on using archaic
BSD 4.(x<3) interfaces and functions.

>2.5 is the first Solaris release that is actually an improvement on SunOS
>4.x. Give it a look, even if you have abandoned anything named "Solaris 2" as
>fundamentally flawed-by-design. This time they got it right. I've heard this
>is the first one that the Solaris engineers were actually forced to run on
>their own boxes, so they fixed many of the more egregiously stupid fuxups they
>had simply ignored in previous releases.

>In fact, if you take Solaris 2.5 right off the CD, eradicate the printer and
>ttymon subsystems, replacing them with normal printing software (PLP, or the
>Berkeley lpr/lpd system) and a nice simple getty like agetty, what's left is a
>quite solid and pleasing Unix-like OS. Admittedly it has fewer features and
>poorer performance than the _real_ competition, 4.4BSD and Linux, but for a
>mere commercial Unix-like OS it no longer sucks.

A lot of this is a silly rant. Look who has the marketshare: Sun.

What Sun really did with the readdition of bcopy and friends is make it
likely that many programs that have been properly ported to a POSIX or SVR4
interface will now be compiled with the earlier BSD interfaces, which will
frequently be a loss.

>-Bennett

--
R.Stewart(Stew) Ellis, Assoc.Prof., (Off)810-762-9765 ___________________
Humanities & Social Science, GMI Eng.& Mgmt.Inst. () / _____ ______
Flint, MI 48504 Free speech and free software! /\ / / / / / /

by **R. Stewart Ell** » Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:00:00

>: HI,

>: Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
>: The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
>: Any ideas?
>: --
>: Tony Primavera, Senior Consultant tele:
>: 334-361-7806
>: ECCS Inc., 1 Sheila Dr., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 fax:
>: 334-361-4059
>: High Availability Solutions (http://www.eccs.com) email:

> Adding the -lucb library to your Makefile will also fix this on
> Solaris I believe.

Never let any of the old Solaris 2.x src compat cruft anywhere near any
program which you wish to run in a sane fashion. Get the Solaris Porting
FAQ and learn the proper way of dealing with this kind of problem.

> Jim
--
R.Stewart(Stew) Ellis, Assoc.Prof., (Off)810-762-9765 ___________________
Humanities & Social Science, GMI Eng.& Mgmt.Inst. () / _____ ______
Flint, MI 48504 Free speech and free software! /\ / / / / / /

by **Alec Muffe** » Fri, 26 Apr 1996 04:00:00

>: Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
>: The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
>: Any ideas?

> Adding the -lucb library to your Makefile will also fix this on
> Solaris I believe.

Better still, frob the appropriate #define in the header files.

I'm sorry this wasn't done using a Configure script, but this was in
my early days of software integration...

- alec

--
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -- -pwcracker-in-2-lines-of-perl-plus-disclaimer

{printf "u=%s p=%s\n",$u{$c},$_ if(crypt($_,$c) eq $c);}} # Use: pwc dict ...

by **Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglun** » Fri, 26 Apr 1996 04:00:00

>> Having probs compiling Crack on Solaris 2.3 with GCC-2.7.2.
>> The problem is a bzero() call which Solaris doesn't support.
>> Any ideas?

Bennett> Yeah; upgrade to Solaris 2.5. Among other niceties they
Bennett> finally abandoned that stupid, gratuitous incompatibility
Bennett> with Unix.

Do you mean that the only UNIX is BSD ??
Bennett> 2.5 is the first Solaris release that is actually an
Bennett> improvement on SunOS 4.x. Give it a look, even if you
Bennett> have abandoned anything named "Solaris 2" as
Bennett> fundamentally flawed-by-design. This time they got it
Bennett> right. I've heard this is the first one that the Solaris
Bennett> engineers were actually forced to run on their own boxes,
Bennett> so they fixed many of the more egregiously stupid fuxups
Bennett> they had simply ignored in previous releases.

Bennett> In fact, if you take Solaris 2.5 right off the CD,
Bennett> eradicate the printer and ttymon subsystems, replacing
Bennett> them with normal printing software (PLP, or the Berkeley
Bennett> lpr/lpd system) and a nice simple getty like agetty,

Hmm you sounds like a BSD nerd
I happen to like the lack of BSD-isms by default in SunOS 5.4.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund I |

<http://www.his.se/ida/~sp2stes1/> I _____/0\_____
I ____________O(.)O___________
H\"ogskolan i Sk\"ovde, Sverige I I-+-I O I-+-I
I
I Viggen with two Rb04
---------------------------------------------------------------------

by **Bennett To** » Sat, 27 Apr 1996 04:00:00

Quote:>SVR4 is UNIX. It is trivially easy to get bzero() and bcopy() functionality
>in Solaris 2.(x<5): get the Solaris Porting FAQ. It will also warn you of
>all sorts of other problems you might have if you insist on using archaic
>BSD 4.(x<3) interfaces and functions.

No, it will warn you that Sun fatally *ed up libucb, whether due to malice
or incompetance who can say. The thing was, the only people pushing for
Solaris 2.x were too ignorant to be responsible, so basic functionality was
broken, and nobody in a position to fix it gave a damn.

Quote:>What Sun really did with the readdition of bcopy and friends is make it
>likely that many programs that have been properly ported to a POSIX or SVR4
>interface will now be compiled with the earlier BSD interfaces, which will
>frequently be a loss.

I don't understand what you mean here. What _I_ see that they did is allow
people to port well-written C to Solaris 2 without having to constantly add
defines or whatever to make bcopy() and friends available. Problem was of
course, the so-called "standard" routines include memcpy() --- which isn't
defined to handle overlapping copies correctly --- and memmove(), which is,
but which was not available under SunOS 4.x. So folks wanting to write code
portable between the two either had to ifdef between Unix and Solaris "Ingrown
NIH", or else just write with working interfaces, then make compatibility
versions of them for deficient OSes. Happily, this is no longer necessary.

In a similar vein, hostname(1) has appeared in /usr/bin, from which it should
have never been removed. Sure, if you're writing scripts that don't need to
run on other platforms you can use uname(1), but hostname(1) should work
correctly and portably --- whereas uname(1) truncated the hostname under SunOS
4.x.

Basically, for the longest kind of time the Solaris proponents were spewing a
party line that went something like "Who cares how *ed up it is; you have
to use it" --- and customers (at least half-clueful ones) said "Like hell we
do". Somewhere between 2.4 and 2.5 Sun seems to have changed their stance on
this one, and decided instead to go with "Ok, if it's really stupidly broke
we'll fix it". Rumour has it that this came about when the engineers were
actually forced to run the damned thing.

-Bennett

Very Computer

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack

Problem compiling crack