Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!mephisto!mcnc!wolves!ggw From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Elm 2.3.6 on 88k (minor glitch) Summary: utime.h is necessary Keywords: utimbuf Message-ID: <1990Aug25.012249.7667@wolves.uucp> Date: 25 Aug 90 01:22:49 GMT Organization: Wolves Den UNIX and Usenet node Lines: 20 X-Checksum-Snefru: 0ea379b5 c21d1c89 e02739d3 b6f518a1 I have Elm 2.3 Patchlevel 6 up and running on ISC 2.0.2 here at wolves and also on the Opus PM400's (Motorola 88000 cpu) at work. The Configure and build went smoothly and Elm works fine. On the 88k, however, Elm gets a EINVAL error on the utime(2) call. This doesn't really hurt anything but it is annoying. I investigated a little more and discovered that the origin of this is in the simplistic way in which the Configure script looks for a definition of the utimbuf structure. It is noted that some systems are "known to not define utimbuf for some *very* obscure reason", but I would like to suggest that a simple test for utime.h or sys/utime.h might be useful. It does exist on the 88k (but not on ISC!) and is NOT the same as the one used by default (details on request). This only effects leavembox.c anyhow. -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ]