Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Scott Silva]

on 2-29-2008 2:36 AM Stephen Usher spake the following:

Scott Silva wrote:
How much longer can a system be expected to run? 8+ years at 24/7 is 
about a half a million hours. Drives are getting old and expensive to 
replace. Processors are probably slow. Energy use is high. Motherboard 
capacitors are probably drying up. The systems are past a safe point 
and are getting closer to the "great e-waste pile in the sky".


I retired a 13 year old DEC AlphaStation 5/266 yesterday... Legacy 
systems are still doing useful things. You just have to make sure that 
they're isolated from the outside as they can't be patched or upgraded. 
(e.g. newer versions of OpenSSH won't compile under Digital UNIX 4.2C)


Steve

P.S. For the record, the DEC box has only ever needed to be shut down 
for power outages and (in its early life) OS upgrades. It ran 24/7 and 
never had a hardware fault (and still doesn't). Now that's reliable 
hardware!

True,
but just because it hasn't failed in 13 years doesn't mean that it wont fail 
tomorrow. Or next week. Everything wears out sooner or later. I don't feel 
right using a server for critical systems for more than 5 years. I usually 
will warranty them to that age, and then move them on.


The servers that used to handle our e-mail needs a few years ago are now 
terabyte backup targets. A new raid controller and some new drives, and the 
critical part of them is as good as new. If a MB or power supply dies I can 
move the drive cage to another system and get to the data in less than an hour.



--
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Stephen Usher]

Scott Silva wrote:
How much longer can a system be expected to run? 8+ years at 24/7 is 
about a half a million hours. Drives are getting old and expensive to 
replace. Processors are probably slow. Energy use is high. Motherboard 
capacitors are probably drying up. The systems are past a safe point and 
are getting closer to the "great e-waste pile in the sky".


I retired a 13 year old DEC AlphaStation 5/266 yesterday... Legacy systems are 
still doing useful things. You just have to make sure that they're isolated from 
the outside as they can't be patched or upgraded. (e.g. newer versions of 
OpenSSH won't compile under Digital UNIX 4.2C)


Steve

P.S. For the record, the DEC box has only ever needed to be shut down for power 
outages and (in its early life) OS upgrades. It ran 24/7 and never had a 
hardware fault (and still doesn't). Now that's reliable hardware!

--
---
Computer Systems Administrator,E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Earth Sciences, Tel:-  +44 (0)1865 282110
University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, UK. Fax:-  +44 (0)1865 272072

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Scott Silva]

on 2/27/2008 1:46 PM Kevin A. McGrail spake the following:
Well, for me, it's a vast number of boxes deployed and often maintained 
by others that are running stabling for 8+ years making the nuance of 
upgrading to a newer version of GCC fairly mute from a lay persons 
perspective. Seriously, how can you argue with a non-technical user that 
their box installed in 2001 has a "problem" when everything is working 
"fine"?


How much longer can a system be expected to run? 8+ years at 24/7 is about a 
half a million hours. Drives are getting old and expensive to replace. 
Processors are probably slow. Energy use is high. Motherboard capacitors are 
probably drying up. The systems are past a safe point and are getting closer 
to the "great e-waste pile in the sky".


And why would someone install the same old OS on new hardware, and would it 
support it.


--
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Scott Silva]

on 2/27/2008 2:06 PM Sven Anderson spake the following:


Am 27.02.2008 um 15:31 schrieb Timo Sirainen:


Why are you people still using so old gcc versions? I guess I could 
accept a patch something like:


I'm using an old custom-made vserver system, and it's running fine, so 
why spend a lot of time to migrate to a newer distribution?


Sven


It's running fine until it gets rooted/compromised. Then what do you do?



--
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Sven Anderson]

Am 27.02.2008 um 15:31 schrieb Timo Sirainen:


Why are you people still using so old gcc versions? I guess I could  
accept a patch something like:


I'm using an old custom-made vserver system, and it's running fine, so  
why spend a lot of time to migrate to a newer distribution?


Sven

--
http://sven.anderson.de"Believe those who are seeking the truth.
tel:+49-551-9969285 Doubt those who find it."
mobile: +49-179-4939223 (André Gide)

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Charles Marcus]

On 2/27/2008, Kevin A. McGrail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Well, for me, it's a vast number of boxes deployed and often 
maintained by others that are running stabling for 8+ years making 
the nuance of upgrading to a newer version of GCC fairly mute from a 
lay persons perspective. Seriously, how can you argue with a 
non-technical user that their box installed in 2001 has a "problem" 
when everything is working "fine"?


Plus it annoys Timo and that's just an extra bonus ;-) 


All kidding and joking aside... this is pure laziness on the part of the 
sys admin, nothing more. IF you find this remark offensive, then you 
must be guilty.


The 'client' shouldn't even be involved in such a decision... if you are 
responsible for a box, it is your responsibility to make sure it is 
secure - and how can you trust ANYTHING on that box if you are using a 
broken/buggy compiler?


--

Best regards,

Charles

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Kevin A. McGrail]

Well, for me, it's a vast number of boxes deployed and often maintained by 
others that are running stabling for 8+ years making the nuance of upgrading 
to a newer version of GCC fairly mute from a lay persons perspective. 
Seriously, how can you argue with a non-technical user that their box 
installed in 2001 has a "problem" when everything is working "fine"?


Plus it annoys Timo and that's just an extra bonus ;-)

regards,
KAM
- Original Message - 
From: "Asheesh Laroia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Dovecot Mailing List" 
Cc: "Kevin A. McGrail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sven Anderson" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile 
dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95




On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:


On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

I can't argue with that logic but documenting it in a wiki or INSTALL or 
including the patches with the distribution might be more agreeable.


Why are you people still using so old gcc versions?


As an observer, I'd like to remark that it's amazing that 
twentiety-century known-broken non-releases 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html> of GCC are in use in 2008.


I'm honestly curious what keeps you guys on them.

-- Asheesh.

--
Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Asheesh Laroia]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:


On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

I can't argue with that logic but documenting it in a wiki or INSTALL or 
including the patches with the distribution might be more agreeable.


Why are you people still using so old gcc versions?


As an observer, I'd like to remark that it's amazing that 
twentiety-century known-broken non-releases 
 of GCC are in use in 2008.


I'm honestly curious what keeps you guys on them.

-- Asheesh.

--
Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Timo Sirainen]

On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

I can't argue with that logic but documenting it in a wiki or  
INSTALL or including the patches with the distribution might be more  
agreeable.


Why are you people still using so old gcc versions? I guess I could  
accept a patch something like:


#if old gcc version
#  define FLEXIBLE_ARRAY 0
#else
#  define FLEXIBLE_ARRAY
#endif

..
int goodtab[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY];
..



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Kevin A. McGrail]

I can't argue with that logic but documenting it in a wiki or INSTALL or 
including the patches with the distribution might be more agreeable.


And yes, the patch below was a cut and paste from your patch.  I didn't mean 
to say otherwise just to point out that for gcc 2.96, only two small array 
size changes were needed.


Regards,
KAM

- Original Message - 
From: "Sven Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This is included in my patch already, but Timo didn't want to commit it,
since [0] is gcc specific, and [] is C99 standard.

Kevin A. McGrail schrieb:

As a follow-up on this, these two lines also helped me to compile the
1.1rc1 on gcc 2.96:

diff -ru dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib/str-find.c
dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib/str-find.c
--- dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib/str-find.c   Tue Oct 23 16:01:16 2007
+++ dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib/str-find.c   Thu Jan 17
14:08:03 2008
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
   unsigned int match_count;

   int badtab[UCHAR_MAX+1];
-   int goodtab[];
+   int goodtab[0];
};

static void init_badtab(struct str_find_context *ctx)
diff -ru dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib-imap/imap-match.c
dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib-imap/imap-match.c
--- dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib-imap/imap-match.cSun Dec  9
19:14:27 2007
+++ dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib-imap/imap-match.cThu Jan
17 14:09:02 2008
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
   struct imap_match_pattern *patterns;

   char sep;
-   char patterns_data[];
+   char patterns_data[0];
};

Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Sven Anderson]

This is included in my patch already, but Timo didn't want to commit it,
since [0] is gcc specific, and [] is C99 standard.

Kevin A. McGrail schrieb:
> As a follow-up on this, these two lines also helped me to compile the
> 1.1rc1 on gcc 2.96:
> 
> diff -ru dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib/str-find.c
> dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib/str-find.c
> --- dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib/str-find.c   Tue Oct 23 16:01:16 2007
> +++ dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib/str-find.c   Thu Jan 17
> 14:08:03 2008
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>unsigned int match_count;
> 
>int badtab[UCHAR_MAX+1];
> -   int goodtab[];
> +   int goodtab[0];
> };
> 
> static void init_badtab(struct str_find_context *ctx)
> diff -ru dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib-imap/imap-match.c
> dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib-imap/imap-match.c
> --- dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib-imap/imap-match.cSun Dec  9
> 19:14:27 2007
> +++ dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib-imap/imap-match.cThu Jan
> 17 14:09:02 2008
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
>struct imap_match_pattern *patterns;
> 
>char sep;
> -   char patterns_data[];
> +   char patterns_data[0];
> };
> 

-- 
http://sven.anderson.de"Believe those who are seeking the truth.
tel:+49-551-9969285 Doubt those who find it."
mobile: +49-179-4939223 (André Gide)

[Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95

[Kevin A. McGrail]

As a follow-up on this, these two lines also helped me to compile the 1.1rc1 
on gcc 2.96:


diff -ru dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib/str-find.c 
dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib/str-find.c

--- dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib/str-find.c   Tue Oct 23 16:01:16 2007
+++ dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib/str-find.c   Thu Jan 17 14:08:03 
2008

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
   unsigned int match_count;

   int badtab[UCHAR_MAX+1];
-   int goodtab[];
+   int goodtab[0];
};

static void init_badtab(struct str_find_context *ctx)
diff -ru dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib-imap/imap-match.c 
dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib-imap/imap-match.c
--- dovecot-1.1.beta13/src/lib-imap/imap-match.cSun Dec  9 19:14:27 
2007
+++ dovecot-1.1.beta13.patched/src/lib-imap/imap-match.cThu Jan 17 
14:09:02 2008

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
   struct imap_match_pattern *patterns;

   char sep;
-   char patterns_data[];
+   char patterns_data[0];
};

Regards,
KAM

- Original Message - 
From: "Sven Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:57 AM
Subject: [Dovecot] PATCH: compile dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95



Hi,

I patched dovecot-1.1.beta14 to compile under gcc 2.95. __builtin_expect
and __attribute__((malloc)) are only available since gcc 3.0, and
__builtin_types_compatible_p since 3.1.

Also the flexible array members (char a[]) are not available for gcc
2.95. So I replaced them with zero-extent arrays (char a[0]), which
should also work, but that is gcc specific. A general pointer (char* a)
should work as well, I guess.

I have attached a patch that fixes all this. It is for beta13 but also
works on beta14.

BTW.: There is a typo in src/login-common/main.c, it's equivalent, not
equilevant.


Cheers,

Sven

--
http://sven.anderson.de"Believe those who are seeking the truth.
tel:+49-551-9969285 Doubt those who find it."
mobile: +49-179-4939223 (André Gide)