Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!indri!ames!oliveb!sun!sally!plocher
From: plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Microport 286 binaries on SysV3.2?
Message-ID: <103695@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 8 May 89 21:23:23 GMT
References: <1989May5.060529.18967@telly.on.ca>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 30

+---- In <1989May5.060529.18967@telly.on.ca> Evan Leibovitch writes:
| I have been unsuccessful in attempts to make the Microport 286 DWB
| work on my Enix 3.2 (now to be renamed OSIX :-Q). Did Microport do
| something to AT&T COFF that makes it different from original AT&T
| specs?
+----

I'm not suprised.  Microport *never* recompiled the DWB 286 stuff from
source.  The binaries came directly from Intel in STL (Single Task
Loadable) format.  V/286 had special support for this type file (gen'd by
Intel's development tools), but it was NEVER part of an AT&T standard.

Why, do you ask, didn't Microport ever recompile the sources?  Because
we didn't have them.  DWB/286 was version 1 from AT&T, DWB/386 was
version 2.  All we had was DWB-Ver2 source, and it didn't compile on the
286 :-(

The code generated by Microport's 286 compiler DOES generate COFF files,
and these files DO run under 386 Unix - both Microport's and all the other
3.2 releases.  Everex shouldn't have to do anything to make those things
work - ATT already did it.  As for the STL format DWB, ha!  Even I don't
know what STL looks like internally.

    -John Plocher

(BTW - I liked your .signature :-)

>For a dollar you can still buy: A piece of paper with the Queen's face on it

(in strange colours, though!)