Re: perchild under Solaris 8
>Looks like we should be using the later, for Unix 95. Doesn't appear that >we need Unix 98 But... there's no reason to avoid using "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500". I've built perchild httpd with "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D__EXTENSIONS__", and it works well. Tsuyoshi SASAMOTO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
At 2:31 PM +0900 9/11/02, Tsuyoshi SASAMOTO wrote: > >> >> If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure >>> >> process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly under Solaris 8 and >>> >> result in a binary that actually serves content!! > >Please see the standards(5) man page. "-D_XPG4_2" is an internal macro, >so it shouldn't be defined directly. "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D__EXTENSIONS__" >should be used instead (or "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1 >-D__EXTENSIONS__"). Looks like we should be using the later, for Unix 95. Doesn't appear that we need Unix 98 -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
Tsuyoshi SASAMOTO wrote: > > >> >> If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure > >> >> process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly under Solaris 8 and > >> >> result in a binary that actually serves content!! > > Please see the standards(5) man page. "-D_XPG4_2" is an internal macro, > so it shouldn't be defined directly. "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D__EXTENSIONS__" > should be used instead (or "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1 >-D__EXTENSIONS__"). > # "-D_XPG4_2" etc. may be defined internally in . > That's what you get for looking at header files and code and not manuals. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, I don't think Solaris uses the same structure/functions for passing > fd's between processes. I had originally planned to use a Solaris box for > the second port, but I don't have access to one yet. I keep looking on > e-bay for a good x86 box though. Ryan, send me your SSH key... We have _plenty_ of Solaris boxes (including a big fat Apache machine handling the bug tracking database!!! :) :) :) NO EXCUSES! :) :) :) Pier
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
>> >> If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure >> >> process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly under Solaris 8 and >> >> result in a binary that actually serves content!! Please see the standards(5) man page. "-D_XPG4_2" is an internal macro, so it shouldn't be defined directly. "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D__EXTENSIONS__" should be used instead (or "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1 -D__EXTENSIONS__"). # "-D_XPG4_2" etc. may be defined internally in . >Yeah, I don't think Solaris uses the same structure/functions for passing >fd's between processes. recvmsg(3XNET), which is actually mapped to __xnet_recvmsg(), has the UNIX95 semantics, and recvmsg(3SOCKET) has the traditional SunOS4.x semantics. Both can be used for FD passing. Tsuyoshi SASAMOTO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I'm also concerned about breakage... Thing is, we're using msghdr for > > the recvmsg() calls. > > Yeah, I don't think Solaris uses the same structure/functions for passing > fd's between processes. > Well, it looks like it *can* :) That doesn't mean that it should... ;) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > At 11:07 AM -0700 9/10/02, Aaron Bannert wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure > >> process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly under Solaris 8 and > >> result in a binary that actually serves content!! Haven't yet > >> playing with using the actual uid/gid aspects of perchild yet. > >> > >> I'm looking to see what affects, if any, adding these by default to > >> APR and httpd will be... If anyone has some better experience with > >> these, please let me know :) > > > >If that combo works, great, but I have a feeling it will break some > >other things. I have a combo somewhere around here that I am using on > >another module that allows solaris to expose the same file descriptor > >passing semantics, let me see if I can find it. > > > > I'm also concerned about breakage... Thing is, we're using msghdr for > the recvmsg() calls. Yeah, I don't think Solaris uses the same structure/functions for passing fd's between processes. I had originally planned to use a Solaris box for the second port, but I don't have access to one yet. I keep looking on e-bay for a good x86 box though. Ryan ___ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 ---
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
At 11:07 AM -0700 9/10/02, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure
>> process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly under Solaris 8 and
>> result in a binary that actually serves content!! Haven't yet
>> playing with using the actual uid/gid aspects of perchild yet.
>>
>> I'm looking to see what affects, if any, adding these by default to
>> APR and httpd will be... If anyone has some better experience with
>> these, please let me know :)
>
>If that combo works, great, but I have a feeling it will break some
>other things. I have a combo somewhere around here that I am using on
>another module that allows solaris to expose the same file descriptor
>passing semantics, let me see if I can find it.
>
I'm also concerned about breakage... Thing is, we're using msghdr for
the recvmsg() calls.
/*
* Message header for recvmsg and sendmsg calls.
*/
struct msghdr {
void*msg_name; /* optional address */
socklen_t msg_namelen;/* size of address */
struct iovec*msg_iov; /* scatter/gather array */
int msg_iovlen; /* # elements in msg_iov */
#if defined(_XPG4_2) || defined(_KERNEL)
void*msg_control; /* ancillary data */
socklen_t msg_controllen; /* ancillary data buffer len */
int msg_flags; /* flags on received message */
#else
caddr_t msg_accrights; /* access rights sent/received */
int msg_accrightslen;
#endif /* defined(_XPG4_2) || defined(_KERNEL) */
};
The __EXTENSIONS__ is required for proctype_t (in various headers)
to be correctly defined :/
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: perchild under Solaris 8
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure > process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly under Solaris 8 and > result in a binary that actually serves content!! Haven't yet > playing with using the actual uid/gid aspects of perchild yet. > > I'm looking to see what affects, if any, adding these by default to > APR and httpd will be... If anyone has some better experience with > these, please let me know :) If that combo works, great, but I have a feeling it will break some other things. I have a combo somewhere around here that I am using on another module that allows solaris to expose the same file descriptor passing semantics, let me see if I can find it. -aaron
