From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 8 14:20:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA26277 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 1996 14:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA26258 for ; Wed, 8 May 1996 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA25506; Wed, 8 May 1996 15:19:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:19:57 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199605082119.PAA25506@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: "Jesus A. Mora Marin" Cc: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert), freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: troubles with IBCS emulation In-Reply-To: <199605081300.PAA04660@obelix.cica.es> References: <199605032222.PAA14979@phaeton.artisoft.com> <199605081300.PAA04660@obelix.cica.es> Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Let me jump in here, though I don't remember the original posting. > > Hmm... SCO is not smart enough to include `gdb'. It uses `adb' (an > assembler-only debugger, for hard-cored hackers) and `sdb' (a symbolic debugger > lightyears behind gdb). Well I can get both of them, but how should you trace > the sqlexec process? If you run it standalone it simply exits. Compile a custom kernel with 'options KTRACE', and use it to see what's happening. I'll bet it's looking for SCO shlibs, and it's dying because it can't find them. I currently have FreeBSD running a whole bunch of legacy SCO applications which use Informix, but in order to avoid the necessity for SCO shlibs (which kind of defeats the purpose of using FreeBSD) I had to get a special release from Informix which was compiled statically. I'm using Informix 5.07.UC1 w/out any problems with -current. TCP/IP stuff doesn't work very well under -stable. > `sbd' can do that. I should better read the sdb manpage. By the way: can gdb be > recompiled in order to understand COFF binaries under FreeBSD? Would it work > at all? 'Probably', but we do all of our debugging under SCO, and then run the final product under FreeBSD for cost and performance reasons. > > This would require an SCO system to test; sorry, I don't have one. > > Nor I do, and no intention of installing forty diskettes. Also, I have browsed > old docs and can now confirm you that SCO Unix -I'm always talking about SVR3 > versions- doesn't have a lstat(2) syscall: in fact, symbolic links were > introduced in SVR4 -AT&T was never very innovative-. Umm, the version of SCO I have contains symlinks, and also lstat. lstat(NS) 6 January 1993 lstat(NS) Name lstat - get file status Syntax #include #include ... 2% uname -a spd spd 3.2 2 i386 > >> IBCS2: 'sysi86' function 104(0x68) not implemented yet > >> IBCS2: 'sysi86' function 100(0x64) not implemented yet I get this all the time, and have determine that whatever it's trying to do is un-necessary, so it's commented out of my kernel sources.:) Nate