Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.misc > #2108 > unrolled thread

Testers wanted!

Started byNils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>
First post2014-05-01 13:41 +0000
Last post2014-05-30 04:28 -0400
Articles 15 on this page of 55 — 7 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.misc

Contents

  Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-01 13:41 +0000
    Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-01 17:08 -0400
      Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-01 17:15 -0400
      Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-01 18:14 -0400
        Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-02 06:23 +0000
          Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-02 06:13 -0400
            Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-02 06:38 -0400
            Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-02 18:23 +0000
              Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-02 18:42 +0000
                Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-02 21:02 -0400
                  Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 08:00 +0000
                    Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-03 08:33 -0400
                      Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 13:40 +0000
    Re: Testers wanted! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-02 22:02 +0100
      Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 08:11 +0000
        Re: Testers wanted! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-03 10:22 +0100
          Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 10:03 +0000
          Re: Testers wanted! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-03 11:02 +0100
            Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 10:58 +0000
              Re: Testers wanted! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-03 12:44 +0100
                Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 13:42 +0000
      Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 08:21 +0000
        Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 11:03 +0000
    Re: Testers wanted! Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2014-05-03 12:33 +0200
      Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 10:59 +0000
        Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 11:02 +0000
          Re: Testers wanted! Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2014-05-03 13:12 +0200
            Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 11:18 +0000
              Re: Testers wanted! Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2014-05-03 16:14 +0200
                Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-03 14:28 +0000
    Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-04 21:55 -0400
      Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-05 07:07 +0000
        Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-05 04:13 -0400
          Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-05 04:18 -0400
            Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-05 06:52 -0400
              Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-07 14:49 +0000
                Re: Testers wanted! "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 20:50 +0100
                  Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-08 08:37 +0000
                    Re: Testers wanted! "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-05-08 10:50 +0200
                      Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-08 08:55 +0000
                    Re: Testers wanted! "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 10:21 +0100
                      Re: Testers wanted! George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-05-08 13:43 -0400
      Re: Testers wanted! Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2014-05-05 20:29 +0200
        Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-05 19:09 -0400
          Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-12 07:06 +0000
            Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-12 16:18 +0000
              Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-12 20:00 -0400
                Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-13 14:24 +0000
                  Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-13 17:04 -0400
                    Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-14 16:50 +0000
                      Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-14 19:04 -0400
                        Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-16 09:39 +0000
                          Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-16 17:33 -0400
                            Re: Testers wanted! Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2014-05-17 20:25 +0000
                            Re: Testers wanted! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-30 04:28 -0400

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#2222

From"James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com>
Date2014-05-08 10:21 +0100
Message-ID<lkfiae$mjg$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#2218
"Nils M Holm" <news2009@t3x.org> wrote in message 
news:bt0u37Fs4f3U1@mid.individual.net...
> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just an FYI: if you have a machine which is 64-bit capable but is running 
>> a
>> 32-bit OS you can still run 64-bit virtual guests using something like
>> Oracle VirtualBox
>
> Good to know, thanks!  The box I get will probably be a 1 GHz
> Core 2 Duo. Does this offer sufficient CPU power for virtualization?
> RAM is not so much of a problem, since I would only install CLI-based
> guests.

At least with VirtualBox your CPU should be fine as each guest only uses 
horsepower as required. IME some other emulators such as Bochs use all of 
the CPU. But as long as the guest is not in in infinite loop VirtualBox 
seems to use little of the CPU when the guest is idle.

Further, if necessary you can limit the percentage of the CPU that a given 
guest will be able to take. That's not normally a good idea as it limits the 
guest even when the host's CPU is idle but it can be reassuring to know 
about!

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2227

FromGeorge Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Date2014-05-08 13:43 -0400
Message-ID<c7fnm9dfvul3bgvavvl7qg6j9t4e2iaikm@4ax.com>
In reply to#2222
On Thu, 8 May 2014 10:21:17 +0100, "James Harris"
<james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:

>At least with VirtualBox your CPU should be fine as each guest only uses 
>horsepower as required. IME some other emulators such as Bochs use all of 
>the CPU. But as long as the guest is not in in infinite loop VirtualBox 
>seems to use little of the CPU when the guest is idle.

Bochs is a software emulation of the whole CPU.  It's great for
debugging kernel software but less useful for just running things.

VirtualBox, VMware, etc. do not emulate the whole CPU but rather only
emulate certain privileged instructions whose use could expose or
compromise the virtualization.  All unprivileged instructions are
executed directly on the host CPU.  

Most (~98%) of instructions are either unprivileged or safe to use
under virtualization, so letting the host CPU execute them directly is
a win.

George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2185

FromLuuk <luuk@invalid.lan>
Date2014-05-05 20:29 +0200
Message-ID<is1l3b-i03.ln1@luuk.invalid.lan>
In reply to#2176
On 5-5-2014 03:55, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2014 09:41:59 -0400, Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:
>
>
> FYI, for the older version (20140425) a diff of the binaries
> scc and scc1 shows *NO* differences.  The sources are the same
> too.  However, the test sequence "make ptest systest libtest"
> fails the same way as tne newer version:
>

on i386 also no difference with sources from today

sources: subc-20140505.tgz
uname -a : Linux asus.example.com 3.7.10-1.28-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon 
Feb 3 14:11:15 UTC 2014 (c9a2c6c) i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

$> ./configure && cd src && make test && make tests
....
Looks good!

$> ls -l scc scc1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 luuk users 188991 May  5 20:25 scc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 luuk users 188991 May  5 20:25 scc1

$> sha1sum -b scc scc1
7b4bb977b6ca87560e6011b4df2a3c2736bb6a2c *scc
7b4bb977b6ca87560e6011b4df2a3c2736bb6a2c *scc1


$> make ptest systest libtest
awk -f ../tests/ptest.awk <../tests/ptest.src >../tests/ptest.c
./scc0 -o ../tests/ptest ../tests/ptest.c
../tests/ptest
rm ../tests/ptest
./scc0 -o ../tests/systest ../tests/systest.c
(cd ../tests && ./systest)
_time() returned 1399314403
rm ../tests/systest
./scc0 -o ../tests/libtest ../tests/libtest.c
(cd ../tests && ./libtest)
rm ../tests/libtest
$>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2200

From"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Date2014-05-05 19:09 -0400
Message-ID<op.xfes9stv6zenlw@localhost>
In reply to#2185
On Mon, 05 May 2014 14:29:06 -0400, Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> wrote:
> On 5-5-2014 03:55, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 09:41:59 -0400, Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>  
>> wrote:

>> FYI, for the older version (20140425) a diff of the binaries
>> scc and scc1 shows *NO* differences.  The sources are the same
>> too.  However, the test sequence "make ptest systest libtest"
>> fails the same way as tne newer version:
>>
>
> on i386 also no difference with sources from today
>
> sources: subc-20140505.tgz
> uname -a : Linux asus.example.com 3.7.10-1.28-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon  
> Feb 3 14:11:15 UTC 2014 (c9a2c6c) i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>
> $> ./configure && cd src && make test && make tests
> ....
> Looks good!
>
> $> ls -l scc scc1
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 luuk users 188991 May  5 20:25 scc
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 luuk users 188991 May  5 20:25 scc1
>
> $> sha1sum -b scc scc1
> 7b4bb977b6ca87560e6011b4df2a3c2736bb6a2c *scc
> 7b4bb977b6ca87560e6011b4df2a3c2736bb6a2c *scc1
>
>

Diff scc scc1 still different here.  subc-20140505.tgz
64-bit Vector Linux (Vlocity).

sha1sum -b scc scc1
23d0ce5675e71f9d95d3eafa38d698bb8becc3b2 *scc
b232d5d55a92d529057395e6cfad9840e5d4a526 *scc1

Sorry,


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2236

FromNils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>
Date2014-05-12 07:06 +0000
Message-ID<btba7tF32ogU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2200
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> Diff scc scc1 still different here.  subc-20140505.tgz
> 64-bit Vector Linux (Vlocity).
> 
> sha1sum -b scc scc1
> 23d0ce5675e71f9d95d3eafa38d698bb8becc3b2 *scc
> b232d5d55a92d529057395e6cfad9840e5d4a526 *scc1

I have now installed Debian (latest) in a 64-bit VM and tried the
triple test and the binaries are identical here.

Will try Vector Linux next. You mentioned that you updated libc.
Have you also installed a different GCC or are you using the one
distributed with the OS?

-- 
Nils M Holm  < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g >  www.t3x.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2239

FromNils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>
Date2014-05-12 16:18 +0000
Message-ID<btcaibF9socU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2236
Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> > Diff scc scc1 still different here.  subc-20140505.tgz
> > 64-bit Vector Linux (Vlocity).
>
> [...]
>
> Will try Vector Linux next. You mentioned that you updated libc.
> Have you also installed a different GCC or are you using the one
> distributed with the OS?

Tried it and the triple test ran fine. Same assembly, same objects,
same binaries. My config is below. What's differerent in yours?

vector $ uname -a
Linux vector.local 3.2.22 #1 SMP Sat Jul 7 21:04:11 CDT 2012 x86_64
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5500 @ 1.66GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

vector $ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.5.2/specs
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.5.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-slackware-linux
Configured with: ../gcc-4.5.2/configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64
--mandir=/usr/man --infodir=/usr/info --enable-shared --enable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=ada,c,c++,fortran,java,objc,lto --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib
--with-python-dir=/lib64/python2.6/site-packages
--disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-libssp
--enable-lto --with-gnu-ld --verbose --disable-multilib
--target=x86_64-slackware-linux --build=x86_64-slackware-linux
--host=x86_64-slackware-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.2 (GCC) 

vector $ ld -v
GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.21.51.0.6.20110118

-- 
Nils M Holm  < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g >  www.t3x.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2240

From"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Date2014-05-12 20:00 -0400
Message-ID<op.xfrubu0o6zenlw@localhost>
In reply to#2239
On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:18:20 -0400, Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:
> Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

>> > Diff scc scc1 still different here.  subc-20140505.tgz
>> > 64-bit Vector Linux (Vlocity).
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Will try Vector Linux next. You mentioned that you updated libc.
>> Have you also installed a different GCC or are you using the one
>> distributed with the OS?
>

Uh, good question ...

> Tried it and the triple test ran fine. Same assembly, same objects,
> same binaries. My config is below. What's differerent in yours?
>
> vector $ uname -a
> Linux vector.local 3.2.22 #1 SMP Sat Jul 7 21:04:11 CDT 2012 x86_64
> Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5500 @ 1.66GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
>
> vector $ gcc -v
> Reading specs from /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.5.2/specs
> COLLECT_GCC=gcc
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.5.2/lto-wrapper
> Target: x86_64-slackware-linux
> Configured with: ../gcc-4.5.2/configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64
> --mandir=/usr/man --infodir=/usr/info --enable-shared --enable-bootstrap
> --enable-languages=ada,c,c++,fortran,java,objc,lto --enable-threads=posix
> --enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib
> --with-python-dir=/lib64/python2.6/site-packages
> --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-libssp
> --enable-lto --with-gnu-ld --verbose --disable-multilib
> --target=x86_64-slackware-linux --build=x86_64-slackware-linux
> --host=x86_64-slackware-linux
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.5.2 (GCC)
>
> vector $ ld -v
> GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.21.51.0.6.20110118
>

Um, do either of the sha1sums of yours match what I posted?

Except for the processor (3.2Ghz), it looks basically the same to me...

Linux zz 3.2.22 #1 SMP Sat Jul 7 21:04:11 CDT 2012 x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) II
X2 555 Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux

Reading specs from /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.5.2/specs
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.5.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-slackware-linux
Configured with: ../gcc-4.5.2/configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64
--mandir=/usr/man --infodir=/usr/info --enable-shared --enable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=ada,c,c++,fortran,java,objc,lto --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib
--with-python-dir=/lib64/python2.6/site-packages
--disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-libssp
--enable-lto --with-gnu-ld --verbose --disable-multilib
--target=x86_64-slackware-linux --build=x86_64-slackware-linux
--host=x86_64-slackware-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.2 (GCC)

GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.21.51.0.6.20110118


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2245

FromNils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>
Date2014-05-13 14:24 +0000
Message-ID<bteo8aFpodpU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2240
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> Um, do either of the sha1sums of yours match what I posted?

My sha1sum differs from both of those you have posted.

Too bad, being able to reproduce that failure on my own
machine would be really helpful.

-- 
Nils M Holm  < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g >  www.t3x.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2246

From"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Date2014-05-13 17:04 -0400
Message-ID<op.xftgtejo6zenlw@localhost>
In reply to#2245
On Tue, 13 May 2014 10:24:10 -0400, Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

>> Um, do either of the sha1sums of yours match what I posted?
>
> My sha1sum differs from both of those you have posted.
>

Not good.

> Too bad, being able to reproduce that failure on my own
> machine would be really helpful.
>

Well, I'm not really sure about where to go from here.

1) you could try compiling as 'root' on your system to see if that's the  
issue
2) we could check for same files with optimizations turned down or off
3) we could check for differing links to C and library files
4) we could compare sha1 or md5 sums against C and library files
5) we could compare sha1 or md5 sums of the VLocity .iso image
6) you could blame something on my machine or version of VLocity and just  
forget it
7) you could try re-installing VLocity using the same image as I used

The website currently has VLocity 7.0:
VL64-7.0.1-STD-FINAL.iso

I have a whole bunch of .iso's for Vector Linux, mostly 32-bit
versions, not 64-bit.  So, I'm fairly sure I installed this:

VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso
  sha1sum cdf42b3c6c23b558c68e1685e2398c5ace946bbf
  md5sum 14f38d60a71f5754ce4646b876323ffc

I can't find VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso archived on:
  vectorlinux.com
  vectorlinux.osuosl.org
  vlcore.vectorlinux.com

Google finds these two sites which claim they have it:
http://ftp2.gr.freebsd.org/pub/dist/vectorlinux/Uelsk8s/iso-test/
http://www.mmnt.net/db/0/0/ftp7.freebsd.org/sites/vectorlinux.com/Uelsk8s/iso-test

I've not downloaded from them to test availability of the file.
If they have them, check the sums to make sure it's the same.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2248

FromNils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>
Date2014-05-14 16:50 +0000
Message-ID<bthl7iFe6vvU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2246
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> Well, I'm not really sure about where to go from here.
> 
> 1) you could try compiling as 'root' on your system to see if that's the  
> issue
> 2) we could check for same files with optimizations turned down or off
> 3) we could check for differing links to C and library files
> 4) we could compare sha1 or md5 sums against C and library files
> 5) we could compare sha1 or md5 sums of the VLocity .iso image
> 6) you could blame something on my machine or version of VLocity and just  
> forget it
> 7) you could try re-installing VLocity using the same image as I used

I have first tried 7) with the ISO image you suggested (sha1 and md5
matched). Thank you for the links! Same result as before, though: all
files match.

(BTW, the uname/gcc/ld output you posted earlier suggests that you are
running VectorLinux 7.0 rather than 6.0.)

I have now prepared a triple test shell script that will collect all
kinds of data during testing (assembly files, object files, binaries).
If the test succeeds, it will just delete the files. If the test fails,
it will ask you to send them to my email address.

If you want to try the script, please download version 2014-05-14b,
package all resulting files (if any) in a tarball and upload them as
before.

-- 
Nils M Holm  < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g >  www.t3x.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2251

From"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Date2014-05-14 19:04 -0400
Message-ID<op.xfvg17om6zenlw@localhost>
In reply to#2248
On Wed, 14 May 2014 12:50:58 -0400, Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

>> 7) you could try re-installing VLocity using the same image as I used
>
> I have first tried 7) with the ISO image you suggested (sha1 and md5
> matched). Thank you for the links! Same result as before, though: all
> files match.
>
> (BTW, the uname/gcc/ld output you posted earlier suggests that you are
> running VectorLinux 7.0 rather than 6.0.)
>

So, I take it that you're saying the installed
VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso didn't have the same results
for gcc, ld, and uname.  Sigh...

Well, I began wondering if I kept the wrong iso image.
That would be bad.  So, I did a more thorough check for
saved .iso's.

I have two CD-R's labeled:
  "Vector Linux 5.0"
  "Vector Linux V.7 64-bit"

I don't know which .iso images those correspond to.
Obviously, I installed from the version 7 image.

I have the following .iso's on another drive where
I generally archive them:
  VL6.0-STD-Gold.iso
  VL6.0-Light-Final.iso
  VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso

I also have the following .iso's on this machine:
  VL64-7.0.1-STD-FINAL.iso  (downloaded yesterday)
  VL7.0-LIGHT.iso

So, maybe, it wasn't the  VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso,
but the VL7.0-LIGHT.iso image.  If so, I'm sorry
about causing you extra work.  Although, I don't
see anything saying VL7.0-LIGHT is 64-bits...

VL7.0-LIGHT.iso
  sha1sum 343180ea5c17bb561547475b18df14d108f0e210
  md5sum 8dda595365e1c9e244fc1c54b86ba0a6

The "VL 7.0 Light Edition" link on the Vector Linux
download page has the same sums.  You could try that
image.
http://vectorlinux.com/downloads

If that version doesn't show the issue, then I'll have to
learn how to retrieve the .iso image from my CD-R in Linux
to determine which .iso image it was.

Unfortunately, I don't currently know how to retrieve the
.iso image from my CD-R in Linux to compare with the
available .iso's.

Also, I'm unsure if a retrieved image will be identical
to the original used to burn it.  Will the retrieved
image be the same as the original?  E.g., name change,
etc.  If not, sections of the images that could've been
changed by the burning software would need to be masked
or cleared out prior to binary comparison.

The machine the CD-R was burned on had software to
create .iso images from CD's, but it no longer has
the necessary hardware.  My old IDE drive died on
my Windows 98/SE machine and the new hardware is SATA.
SATA is not supported in Windows 98/SE.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2256

FromNils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>
Date2014-05-16 09:39 +0000
Message-ID<btm4n9Fep0tU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2251
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> I also have the following .iso's on this machine:
>   VL64-7.0.1-STD-FINAL.iso  (downloaded yesterday)
>   VL7.0-LIGHT.iso
> 
> So, maybe, it wasn't the  VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso,
> but the VL7.0-LIGHT.iso image.  If so, I'm sorry
> about causing you extra work.  Although, I don't
> see anything saying VL7.0-LIGHT is 64-bits...

As far as I understand it, the light version is 32-bit only.

However: don't bother looking the the right image! We are
using the same gcc/ld versions anyway, so the cause for
the differnce is probably more subtle and hard to reproduce.

What you could do, though, is to fetch the latest version from
my homepage, run "make test" and send me the output, if there
should be any. The test script will print instructions in case
of failure. URL: http://www.t3x.org/subc/subc-20140514b.tgz

BTW: to copy a CD to an image under Unix/Linux, use

dd if=/dev/cd0 of=image-file.iso bs=2048

(/dev/cd0 may be named differently on your system.)

If the size of the original image was a multiple of 2048 (the
cdrom sector size), the copy and the original image will be
identical. Otherwise, the copy will have trailing zeros.

-- 
Nils M Holm  < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g >  www.t3x.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2257

From"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Date2014-05-16 17:33 -0400
Message-ID<op.xfy15zer6zenlw@localhost>
In reply to#2256
On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:39:53 -0400, Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:

> We are using the same gcc/ld versions anyway, so the cause for
> the differnce is probably more subtle and hard to reproduce.
>
> What you could do, though, is to fetch the latest version from
> my homepage, run "make test" and send me the output, if there
> should be any. The test script will print instructions in case
> of failure. URL: http://www.t3x.org/subc/subc-20140514b.tgz
>

It appeared to build clean to me.  There is no error output after
this line:

sh ../tests/triple-test.sh

I can look for or post specific files if you wish.  But, I think
it built correctly now:

diff scc scc1 shows no differences

sha1sum -b scc scc1 has the same value now:
d918b250221a4178b7a1b38e2a721d94ca1d4466 *scc
d918b250221a4178b7a1b38e2a721d94ca1d4466 *scc1

scc0 is different


So, what was it?

> BTW: to copy a CD to an image under Unix/Linux, use
>
> dd if=/dev/cd0 of=image-file.iso bs=2048

Thanks.  I used that to fetch the image.

I'm familiar with 'dd', but was thinking in terms of a Linux
GUI apps retrieving the .iso, which I'm not yet familiar with.


The 'dd' fetched image is definately not either of these:

VL7.0-LIGHT.iso
VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso

I think I've tracked it down to one of these versions:

VL64-7.0-STD-RC3.5.iso
VL64-7.0-STD-RC3.6.iso
VL64-7.0-STD-RC3.7.iso
VL64-7.0-STD-FINAL.iso

They all have the same dates and times on the top level
directories as the image fetched by 'dd'.  I suspect
the final version, but I'll need to compare directories,
or diff or xdelta or somesuch ...  I suspect I named
the CD when burned, so the fetched image would likely
be different, but the files should match for the correct
version.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2262

FromNils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org>
Date2014-05-17 20:25 +0000
Message-ID<btpuu4F8rvrU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2257
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> It appeared to build clean to me.  There is no error output after
> this line:
> 
> sh ../tests/triple-test.sh

That's good news and bad news at the same time. It is good to know
that the test passes now, but now I do not know why.

The best guess I have right now (as some folks over at comp.compilers
suggested) is that the order of objects was different in linking. This
might in fact be possible, because I called the compiler with *.c in
earlier versions and I am now passing a explicit list of files to it.

I think I will just leave the triple test script in the archive and
hope that the next person who encounters a failed test will send some
results to me.

> I can look for or post specific files if you wish.  But, I think
> it built correctly now:

If the triple-test script did not print anything, the test passed.

> diff scc scc1 shows no differences
> 
> sha1sum -b scc scc1 has the same value now:
> d918b250221a4178b7a1b38e2a721d94ca1d4466 *scc
> d918b250221a4178b7a1b38e2a721d94ca1d4466 *scc1
> 
> scc0 is different

This is expected, since it is compiled by GCC, not by SubC.

> > BTW: to copy a CD to an image under Unix/Linux, use
> >
> > dd if=/dev/cd0 of=image-file.iso bs=2048
> 
> Thanks.  I used that to fetch the image.
> 
> I'm familiar with 'dd', but was thinking in terms of a Linux
> GUI apps retrieving the .iso, which I'm not yet familiar with.

I see. Neither am I, I never use any GUI stuff.

Anyway, thanks for your help! I appreciate it!

-- 
Nils M Holm  < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g >  www.t3x.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2276

From"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Date2014-05-30 04:28 -0400
Message-ID<op.xgny4zbx6zenlw@localhost>
In reply to#2257
On Fri, 16 May 2014 17:33:25 -0400, Rod Pemberton  
<dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:39:53 -0400, Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> wrote:

>> BTW: to copy a CD to an image under Unix/Linux, use
>>
>> dd if=/dev/cd0 of=image-file.iso bs=2048
>
> Thanks.  I used that to fetch the image.
>
> I'm familiar with 'dd', but was thinking in terms of a Linux
> GUI apps retrieving the .iso, which I'm not yet familiar with.
>
>
> The 'dd' fetched image is definately not either of these:
>
> VL7.0-LIGHT.iso
> VL64-6.0-STD-A0.9.iso
>
> I think I've tracked it down to one of these versions:
>
> VL64-7.0-STD-RC3.5.iso
> VL64-7.0-STD-RC3.6.iso
> VL64-7.0-STD-RC3.7.iso
> VL64-7.0-STD-FINAL.iso
>

Just an FYI.

The image on my CD is a truncated version of
VL64-7.0-STD-FINAL.iso, which is the same as
VL64-7.0-STD-RC3.6.iso, and not 3.7.

The 'dd' command failed to retrieve, or the software used
to burn the image truncated 4096 blank bytes at the end
of the image.  The md5sum and sha1sum on the padded 'dd'
retrieved image matches FINAL.

An intersting thing to note is the padded retrieved image
is *exactly* the same as the burned image.  However, a disk
name was burned to the disk that's not part of the iso image.
That means 'dd' doesn't retrieve *all* of the data that was
written to the disk.

Using 'dd' to read the disk image retrieved the same image
for both a mounted and unmounted drive.  The 'bs=2048' option
speed up the read immensely versus smaller size, but larger
sizes didn't help.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.misc

csiph-web