linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Craig Sande » Mon, 09 May 1994 15:38:49



I just got the patches to upgrade my kernel to version 1.1.12 today.

Installed them, and ran "make dep ; make clean ; make", and when it was
nearly finished, the make bombed out with (reformatted to make it more
readable):

=======errlist======
        net/net.o: Undefined symbol _rarp_ioctl referenced from text segment

        fs/filesystems.a(proc.o): Undefined symbol _rarp_get_info referenced
                                                          from text segment

        make: *** [tools/zSystem] Error 1
=======errlist======

I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.

If this is the case, then could someone give me some tips on what to do
to upgrade the compiler?

I've avoided doing it up till now because it seems like a messy job
and I figured it could wait until I got around to installing Slackware
1.2.0, which will be as soon as I get a scsi controller for my system so
I can a) do a tape backup, and b) use my scsi cd-rom drive.

My guess is that I should get a copy of gcc, libraries, binutils etc,
and just follow the instructions in the archives.

What I need to know is:

 - which files do I need to get?

   I have the gcc 2.4.5 and the libraries and binutils etc which came
   with SLS 1.03.  All fairly old stuff.

 - what do i need to be careful of?

   i.e. is it possible for me to install things in the wrong order so
   that, for example, i am unable to run cp or mv or ln to complete the
   install?  I seem to recall this being mentioned at some point in the
   past.

--

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Carl Scho » Tue, 10 May 1994 04:45:59


: I just got the patches to upgrade my kernel to version 1.1.12 today.

: Installed them, and ran "make dep ; make clean ; make", and when it was
: nearly finished, the make bombed out with (reformatted to make it more
: readable):

: =======errlist======
:       net/net.o: Undefined symbol _rarp_ioctl referenced from text segment

:       fs/filesystems.a(proc.o): Undefined symbol _rarp_get_info referenced
:                                                         from text segment

:       make: *** [tools/zSystem] Error 1
: =======errlist======

: I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
: requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.

[...rest deleted...]

No, there's an omission in one of the "Makefile"s.  You need to add
"rarp.o" to the OBJS list in /usr/src/linux/net/inet/Makefile.  It
should look like:

OBJS    = sock.o utils.o route.o proc.o timer.o protocol.o \
          eth.o packet.o arp.o dev.o ip.o raw.o icmp.o tcp.o udp.o \
          datagram.o skbuff.o devinet.o rarp.o

I sent Linus mail on this, but it may not get fixed for a while
since he'll be travelling for the next couple of weeks.

Hope this helps,

Carl Schott

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Graham Chapm » Tue, 10 May 1994 19:11:53



Quote:>I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
>requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.

Someone else has answered this.

Quote:>If this is the case, then could someone give me some tips on what to do
>to upgrade the compiler?

If you did want to upgrade, I can tell you my experiences. I tried first
to install the vanilla gnu gcc 2.5.8, but ran in to lots of problems which
I couldn't fathom. I can't remember what they are now, because I put it
into the too-hard basket, and tried H.J. Lu's releases instead.

With HJL I had no problems apart from those caused by my failing to
read the release notes and follow instructions to the letter. As far as I can
recall, the only thing I had to figure out was with the libc install,
where libm.so.x.y was moved from /lib to /usr/lib, but one of the makefiles
still referred to /lib. Apart from that, no trouble.

I installed gcc 2.5.8, then libc 4.5.21. Libc required binutils 1.9, tools 2.10
or above, and ld.so 1.4.3 or above. Once all that was done, I installed
libg++ 2.5.3l.2. Of all these, libg++ included the binaries and recommended
against trying to recompile. All the others had to be built.

Once I had installed gcc 2.5.8 I then installed and built linux 1.0 (as well
as all the other packages above, obviously) without any problems.

You will need plenty of time and probably about 50Mb free disk space to
build everything. Was it you who said something about "time to build a
coffee plantation"....you'll have it.

Graham

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Craig Sande » Tue, 10 May 1994 22:45:04




>: I just got the patches to upgrade my kernel to version 1.1.12 today.
>: Installed them, and ran "make dep ; make clean ; make", and when it was
>: nearly finished, the make bombed out with (reformatted to make it more
>: readable):
>: =======errlist======
>:   net/net.o: Undefined symbol _rarp_ioctl referenced from text segment
>:   fs/filesystems.a(proc.o): Undefined symbol _rarp_get_info referenced
>:                                                     from text segment
>:   make: *** [tools/zSystem] Error 1
>: =======errlist======
>[...rest deleted...]
>No, there's an omission in one of the "Makefile"s.  You need to add
>"rarp.o" to the OBJS list in /usr/src/linux/net/inet/Makefile.  It
>should look like:
>OBJS    = sock.o utils.o route.o proc.o timer.o protocol.o \
>          eth.o packet.o arp.o dev.o ip.o raw.o icmp.o tcp.o udp.o \
>          datagram.o skbuff.o devinet.o rarp.o
>I sent Linus mail on this, but it may not get fixed for a while
>since he'll be travelling for the next couple of weeks.
>Hope this helps,

Nope, makes no difference.  I tried this, and a few other things based
on this idea, but no luck.

I checked my /usr/src/linux tree, and there were no *.c# type files, so
I presume that the patches applied successfully...

I think I'll install gcc 2.5.8 and libc 4.5.21 and see if they make any
difference (probably not, as someone emailed me saying they had 2.5.8
and had the same problem until they did what you suggested above...)

Tomorrow.  I'm getting tired and can't think straight enough to do it
properly...

--

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by lcvanv.. » Wed, 11 May 1994 17:03:02


Quote:> requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.
> I've avoided doing it up till now because it seems like a messy job
> and I figured it could wait until I got around to installing Slackware
> I can a) do a tape backup, and b) use my scsi cd-rom drive.

>  - which files do I need to get?
>    with SLS 1.03.  All fairly old stuff.
>    i.e. is it possible for me to install things in the wrong order so
> --

Any problems concerning 1.1.12 are due to a fault in the Makefile
in linux/net/inet. How to solve it can be found in c.o.l.d.
Goodluck,
Martijn.
 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Leon Gar » Thu, 12 May 1994 23:28:22



>I just got the patches to upgrade my kernel to version 1.1.12 today.
>Installed them, and ran "make dep ; make clean ; make", and when it was
>nearly finished, the make bombed out with (reformatted to make it more
>readable):
>=======errlist======
>    net/net.o: Undefined symbol _rarp_ioctl referenced from text segment
>    fs/filesystems.a(proc.o): Undefined symbol _rarp_get_info referenced
>                                                      from text segment
>    make: *** [tools/zSystem] Error 1
>=======errlist======

yep there are 2 errors, each one has a simple reason.

the first is, as other posts to this group/subject mention,
that the makefile in net/inet doesnt have rarp.o as a componet of
net.o
solution add rarp.o to the line OBJS =  sock.o utils.o route.o ....
to ensure you found the right Makefile, put rarp.o right next to arp.o

second, if you haven't  configured  Rarp into the kernel,
then CONFIG_INET_RARP is undefined.
fs/proc/net.c should not use _rarp_get_info if
CONFIG_INET_RARP is undefined (and should if it is )
change the file to include the #ifdef #endif's as below.

#ifdef CONFIG_INET_RARP
extern int rarp_get_info  ....
#endif

------

#ifdef CONFIG_INET_RARP
case 135:
        length= rarp_get_info ...
        break;
#endif

Quote:>I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
>requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.

ur, i doubt it. as long as your gcc doesnt get too far behind ..
but the gcc compiler updates bring out new library linking
capabilites,  and the kernel is staticly linked of course,
so unless there's a change in the use of standard c features ..

Quote:>My guess is that I should get a copy of gcc, libraries, binutils etc,
>and just follow the instructions in the archives.

no. only if you want to; you dont need to as far as I know .

>--


 ok?

that should help

leon
--

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Craig Sande » Fri, 13 May 1994 14:12:04




>: I just got the patches to upgrade my kernel to version 1.1.12 today.
>: Installed them, and ran "make dep ; make clean ; make", and when it was
>: nearly finished, the make bombed out with (reformatted to make it more
>: readable):
>: =======errlist======
>:   net/net.o: Undefined symbol _rarp_ioctl referenced from text segment
>:   fs/filesystems.a(proc.o): Undefined symbol _rarp_get_info referenced
>:                                                     from text segment
>:   make: *** [tools/zSystem] Error 1
>: =======errlist======
>: I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
>: requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.
>[...rest deleted...]
>No, there's an omission in one of the "Makefile"s.  You need to add
>"rarp.o" to the OBJS list in /usr/src/linux/net/inet/Makefile.  It
>should look like:
>OBJS    = sock.o utils.o route.o proc.o timer.o protocol.o \
>          eth.o packet.o arp.o dev.o ip.o raw.o icmp.o tcp.o udp.o \
>          datagram.o skbuff.o devinet.o rarp.o
>I sent Linus mail on this, but it may not get fixed for a while
>since he'll be travelling for the next couple of weeks.
>Hope this helps,
>Carl Schott

Thanks Carl, and everyone else who posted or emailed a fix.  It's
working now, with no problems.

--

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Craig Sande » Sun, 15 May 1994 10:22:34




> > I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
> > requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.
> Someone else has answered this.

Yep.  The problem was unrelated to my version of gcc.

Quote:> If you did want to upgrade, I can tell you my experiences. I tried
> first to install the vanilla gnu gcc 2.5.8, but ran in to lots of
> problems which I couldn't fathom. I can't remember what they are
> now, because I put it into the too-hard basket, and tried H.J. Lu's
> releases instead.

I upgraded 4 or 5 days ago, and it is working smoothly now.

Quote:> With HJL I had no problems apart from those caused by my failing to
> read the release notes and follow instructions to the letter. As far
> as I can recall, the only thing I had to figure out was with the libc
> install, where libm.so.x.y was moved from /lib to /usr/lib, but one of
> the makefiles still referred to /lib. Apart from that, no trouble.

Yeah, me too.

The main problems I inititally had were:

1.  I didn't read the release document thoroughly enough, and didn't
    delete the /usr/lib/libgcc.* files.  Quickly solved about 2 minutes
    after my first make failed reporting an error with libgcc.a - a grep
    of the release notes for libgcc told me what i needed to know.

2.  There were some sym links in /usr/lib which prevented tar from
    extracting /usr/lib/libg.a and a few other important files.  In
    particular, libg.a was a sym link to libc.a - I guess things have
    changed a lot since SLS 1.03 was released.  I don't think that this
    was documented in the release notes...I had to figure it out myself.

Quote:> I installed gcc 2.5.8, then libc 4.5.21. Libc required binutils 1.9,
> tools 2.10 or above, and ld.so 1.4.3 or above. Once all that was
> done, I installed libg++ 2.5.3l.2. Of all these, libg++ included the
> binaries and recommended against trying to recompile. All the others
> had to be built.

I installed all of the above except for tools 2.10 - what's in that,
and where do you get it from?  It certainly wasn't in the archive I
ftp-ed GCC 2.5.8 and libc 4.5.21 from because i did an "mget *" to leech
everything.

I didn't have to rebuild anything - I just extracted the binaries and
the include files in the right places, and everything worked.  Then I
rebuilt the kernel with the new libraries - just so everything is up to
date - and it worked fine.

Quote:> You will need plenty of time and probably about 50Mb free disk space
> to build everything. Was it you who said something about "time to
> build a coffee plantation"....you'll have it.

I gained about 30MB by removing X from my system - I can't use it at
the moment because what used to be my mouse port is now supporting an
XT-230E vt-220 clone terminal.  Nice terminal, better than a genuine
vt-220 IMO.

I didn't need 50Mb, though, as I didn't have to recompile libc - it
worked as is in binary form.

All up, it took me about half a day - most of that time I was working on
other things while the computer chugged away in the background :-)

I didn't really need to do it as I'll be moving to Slackware 1.2.0 very
soon, but it was a worthwhile experience.  I now know a lot more about
the compiler and how it all ties in together.

Today I'll probably even have time to compile new versions of the GNU
textutils, shellutils, fileutils etc which I snarfed the other day.
Great, the versions I have installed are getting quite dated.

--

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Graham Chapm » Mon, 16 May 1994 20:58:59




>    particular, libg.a was a sym link to libc.a - I guess things have
>    changed a lot since SLS 1.03 was released.  I don't think that this
>    was documented in the release notes...I had to figure it out myself.

Hmm. I didn't run into this one. My /usr/lib/libg.a is still a symlink to
libc.a. I might dig into this a little...

Quote:>I installed all of the above except for tools 2.10 - what's in that,
>and where do you get it from?  It certainly wasn't in the archive I
>ftp-ed GCC 2.5.8 and libc 4.5.21 from because i did an "mget *" to leech
>everything.

Tools was written by Eric Youngdale and provides tools to generate
DLL jumptable libraries. The current version is tools-2.11.
You can get it from tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/linux/packages/GCC/src.
Archie almost certainly has a copy, but I found mine right here on
kralizec.

Quote:>I didn't have to rebuild anything - I just extracted the binaries and
>the include files in the right places, and everything worked.  Then I
>rebuilt the kernel with the new libraries - just so everything is up to
>date - and it worked fine.

I obviously got different packages. The gcc 2.5.8 and libc 4.5.21 both
contained source only and had to be built. The packages were both put
together by H.J Lu. Libc 4.5.21 was the one which had the line at the
start that you quoted to someone else the other day: something about
"if you miss ONE LINE of this document then this library may not work
for you". One of those lines said that tools 2.10 was needed.

Binutils, ld.so and libg++ were binary releases.

Quite possibly I upgraded the hard way, but I wanted to get packages which
were complete and which I could trust. I also wanted to see a bit about
how the packages and the compiler etc fit together. Having done it
once, I might go for a binary install next time I upgrade, but where can
I get a full binary release which is complete and consistent etc?

Graham

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Craig Sande » Wed, 18 May 1994 19:59:49





> > particular, libg.a was a sym link to libc.a - I guess things have
> > changed a lot since SLS 1.03 was released.  I don't think that this
> > was documented in the release notes...I had to figure it out myself.
> Hmm. I didn't run into this one. My /usr/lib/libg.a is still a symlink
> to libc.a. I might dig into this a little...

I only noticed it by accident - I was looking at the tar file with "tar
tvfz", and noticed that libg.a was over 2MB in size, and remembered
seeing libg.a as a symbolic link to libc.a...I thought that was odd at
the time. "tar xvfz" wont overwrite a symbolic link so I deleted the
link and untarred it again.

Quote:> > I installed all of the above except for tools 2.10 - what's in that,
> Tools was written by Eric Youngdale and provides tools to generate DLL
> jumptable libraries. The current version is tools-2.11.  You can get
> it from tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/linux/packages/GCC/src.  Archie almost
> certainly has a copy, but I found mine right here on kralizec.

I'll see if i can get a copy from archie.au or monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (a
partial mirror of sunsite.unc.edu).  It sounds like I don't really need
it unless I am installing gcc from the sources, though.

Quote:> Having done it once, I might go for a binary install next time I
> upgrade, but where can I get a full binary release which is complete
> and consistent etc?

try monu1.cc.monash.edu.au.

I thing I got my copy from loose.apana.org.au.  Or maybe from sunsite.

--

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Graham Chapm » Thu, 19 May 1994 17:59:13



>> Having done it once, I might go for a binary install next time I
>> upgrade, but where can I get a full binary release which is complete
>> and consistent etc?
>try monu1.cc.monash.edu.au.
>I thing I got my copy from loose.apana.org.au.  Or maybe from sunsite.
>--


I know the mirror sites, what I actually meant was: what specific packages
do I look for. The only ones I've seen so far are source-only, so obviously
I'm looking at the wrong ones.

Thanks for the advice so far

Graham

 
 
 

linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?

Post by Craig Sande » Fri, 20 May 1994 21:20:47




>>> Having done it once, I might go for a binary install next time I
>>> upgrade, but where can I get a full binary release which is complete
>>> and consistent etc?
>I know the mirror sites, what I actually meant was: what specific
>packages do I look for. The only ones I've seen so far are source-only,
>so obviously I'm looking at the wrong ones.

can't remember the exact names (i deleted them from my disk).  But i
think they were something like:

        extra-4.5.21.tar.gz
        image-4.5.21.tar.gz
        inc-4.5.21.tar.gz
        libc-4.5.21.tar.gz
        release.libc-4.5.21

libc-4.5.21.tar.gz is the source code.  image-4.5.21.tar.gz contains the
pre-compiled libs.  extra.4.5.21 contains libg.a and a few other things.
inc.4.5.21 contains the header files (/usr/include/*)

--

 
 
 

1. Problems installing Apache 1.3.12 & ApacheJServ 1.1.12

Machine Spec: Celeron Processor 400MHZ
Operating System: Linux Mandrake 7.0 Complete

I am using the "INSTALL" docs that came with ApacheJServ 1.1.12 and
trying to
build Apache with ApacheJServ support in it from the source files.

The doc has said to

./configure \
--prefix=/usr/local/apache
--activate-module=src/modules/jserv/libjserv.a
make
make install

Problem is I cannot find the file libjserv.a or mod_jserv.c in the
Apache 1.3.12 directory or any of its subdirectories.

The C files are in ApacheJServ 1.1.12 including mod_jserv.c but there is
no
libjserv.a only the file libjserv.module. Are these files equivalent???

Can someone please tell me what to do to configure Apache to work with
Apachejserv support please.

Thanks

Everill

2. Clear Koqueror Location

3. Can Linux 1.1.12 trash NetCards?

4. Survey

5. New: The Linux Quarterly CDROM, Spring '94 (Kernel 1.1.12, Xfree 2.1.1)

6. DHCP client and Mediaone problem

7. Linux Kernel 1.1.12 - RARP Patch

8. Problem calling su with parameters

9. linux gimp 1.1.12 compilation problem.

10. linux gimp 1.1.12 compilation program

11. help with compiling kernel 1.1.12 with umsdos

12. LOOK WHAT THEY DONE TO MY SCREEN ..>1.1.12 and no video sync

13. rarp in 1.1.12