Is it safe to copy /usr/ccs/bin/as from old Solaris 10 release to new one?
Dave
development - trying to port the maths package Sage to Solaris SPARC.
I also personally own a Sun Blade 2000 with Solaris 10 update 6 on it. I
notice that whilst /usr/ccs/bin/ld (the linker) is the same on both
update 4 and 6, the assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/as) has changed.
Given I'm developing software on this machine, clearly the assembler is
important.
It is safe to copy the newer one from the update 6 machine to older
update 4 machine? I know in general it would not be a good idea to mix
things, but I can't actually see it being an issue with an assembler. If
anyone can think of one, can you let me know.
I did this as a quick test, to see if it resolved an issue where things
were building properly on my Blade 2000, but not on the T5240. It did
not, so I returned the assembler back to the original one.
Now I have another issue, where code compiled by gcc 4.4.0 on my Blade
2000 works fine, but fails tests on the T5240. Again, I'm tempted to
swap the assembler as a quick test.
I'm just wondering if there is any harm in doing this?
For reasons I don't know, Sage generates fewer problems on my Blade
(S10u6) than it does on the T5240 (S10u4). For example, MPFR (maths
code) passes all tests gcc -O2 on my Blade, but fails 20 at -)1 or -)2.
Only when configured with any optimisation does it pass all self-tests
on the T5240.
Both systems uses gcc 4.4.0, both using the Sun linker and assembler.
In many ways it is useful to have a couple of systems running different
versions of the OS, as things may show up on one, but not the other. But
I'm interested if substituting assemblers is sage.
If anyone has Solaris 10 update 7 on a SPARC installed, can they tell me
the sizes and md5 checksums of /etc/ccs/bin/ld and /usr/ccs/bin/as
--
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange' take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches.
Dave
I'm interested if substituting assemblers is sage.
>
> If anyone has Solaris 10 update 7 on a SPARC installed, can they tell me
> the sizes and md5 checksums of /etc/ccs/bin/ld and /usr/ccs/bin/as
Oops,
/usr/ccs/bin/ld and /usr/ccs/bin/as
Ian Collins
> I'm using a T5240 running Solaris 10 update 4 for some software
> development - trying to port the maths package Sage to Solaris SPARC.
>
> I also personally own a Sun Blade 2000 with Solaris 10 update 6 on it. I
> notice that whilst /usr/ccs/bin/ld (the linker) is the same on both
> update 4 and 6, the assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/as) has changed.
>
> Given I'm developing software on this machine, clearly the assembler is
> important.
>
> It is safe to copy the newer one from the update 6 machine to older
> update 4 machine? I know in general it would not be a good idea to mix
> things, but I can't actually see it being an issue with an assembler. If
> anyone can think of one, can you let me know.
Possibly not, why not upgrade the older system? Or hunt down the patch
the updated the linker.
--
Ian Collins
Dave
machine is in the USA, this is not without some issues. (There is no
local admin to the machine which know much at all about Solaris, which
is why I'm involved.)
The university department at least does not have any service contract,
so I can't get a patch unless it was a security patch, which I very much
doubt an assembler patch would be. (It's quite possible the University
of Washington has a contract with Sun which allows them to get patches,
but I've no idea and nor does the person in charge of the machine).
None of this is an ideal situation - I'm just trying to make the best of
what I resources I have open to me, which is no known service contract,
and living the other side of the Atlantic.
See my problem?
Ian Collins
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> I'm using a T5240 running Solaris 10 update 4 for some software
>>> development - trying to port the maths package Sage to Solaris SPARC.
>>>
>>> I also personally own a Sun Blade 2000 with Solaris 10 update 6 on
>>> it. I notice that whilst /usr/ccs/bin/ld (the linker) is the same on
>>> both update 4 and 6, the assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/as) has changed.
>>>
>>> Given I'm developing software on this machine, clearly the assembler
>>> is important.
>>>
>>> It is safe to copy the newer one from the update 6 machine to older
>>> update 4 machine? I know in general it would not be a good idea to
>>> mix things, but I can't actually see it being an issue with an
>>> assembler. If anyone can think of one, can you let me know.
>>
>> Possibly not, why not upgrade the older system? Or hunt down the
>> patch the updated the linker.
>>
> Updating the OS is one option, but since I live in the UK and the
> machine is in the USA, this is not without some issues.
How fat is your pipe? I recently did a remote install using a locally
(to the machine) mounted ISO image and the machine's ILOM remote Java
thingy. I also regularly do remote live upgrades of machines on the
same site.
--
Ian Collins
Dave
Not fat enough for a GUI really (2048 Mbit/s down, 256 kbit/s up), but
ok for the command line.
The issue is that if things go wrong, I simply have no way of getting to
the machine - short of getting on a plane, paying hotel bills etc. I'm
assuming your remote install probably either had
1) Someone local who had a clue about the machine.
OR
2) The remote site was reachable if it all went wrong.
I have neither. Neither is the boot disk mirrored, or backed up to a
local tape drive.
I think you can see I have a few problems here! (Also, as you will
probably have realised I'm not a professional system admin, but an
engineer/scientist.)
Marc
> I'm using a T5240 running Solaris 10 update 4 for some software
> development - trying to port the maths package Sage to Solaris SPARC.
>
> I also personally own a Sun Blade 2000 with Solaris 10 update 6 on it. I
> notice that whilst /usr/ccs/bin/ld (the linker) is the same on both
> update 4 and 6, the assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/as) has changed.
>
> Given I'm developing software on this machine, clearly the assembler is
> important.
>
> It is safe to copy the newer one from the update 6 machine to older
> update 4 machine? I know in general it would not be a good idea to mix
> things, but I can't actually see it being an issue with an assembler. If
> anyone can think of one, can you let me know.
gcc has an option (-B I think) which should allow you to point it to
an other as program (or you can always recompile gcc with an appropriate
--with-as option). So you can copy this other 'as' version without
overwriting the system one (I don't remember if there are many
dependencies that need copying at the same time, last time I did it was
on solaris 7).
> I did this as a quick test, to see if it resolved an issue where things
> were building properly on my Blade 2000, but not on the T5240. It did
> not, so I returned the assembler back to the original one.
>
> Now I have another issue, where code compiled by gcc 4.4.0 on my Blade
> 2000 works fine, but fails tests on the T5240. Again, I'm tempted to
> swap the assembler as a quick test.
>
> I'm just wondering if there is any harm in doing this?
As a quick test, if you move it back afterwards and noone else is using
the machine...
Richard B. Gilbert
Your current problems will be as NOTHING if the disk crashes or some
user manages to corrupt it somehow! This system is a catastrophe
waiting for an opportunity!
The question is not WHETHER a disk will fail but WHEN!
Mirroring a disk solves a little less than half the problem. Mirroring
protects you against hardware failure ONLY. If someone deletes a file,
it's GONE! If someone overwrites a file with garbage, your data is
GONE! Little problems like this are the biggest reason for people to
hire a system administrator. An administrator will make sure that
regular backups are made, that backup tapes or copies are sent off site,
etc, etc.
Hope that you are lucky! Or hire a system administrator!
Ian Collins
Mirroring with ZFS and keeping snapshots solves half of the remaining
problems, but yes, this is is disaster waiting to happen!
--
Ian Collins
Darren Dunham
> As a quick test, if you move it back afterwards and noone else is using
> the machine...
Nothing should be trying to grab the full pathname to it. Just copy the
file into a directory early in your path and try it.
--
Darren