Re: Stabilization status

[Jeffrey A Law <law@upchuck.cygnus.com>]

  In message <199901141842.NAA02579@caip.rutgers.edu>you write:
  > 	Okay.  I'm not an AIX guru so I don't know much about lslpp.  I
  > read the man page, poked at it a bit and guessed that bos.rte.bind_cmds
  > is the correct Fileset name.
  > 
  > The response from "lslpp -Lc bos.rte.bind_cmds" on AIX4.1.4.0 is:
  > 
  >  > #Package Name:Fileset:Level:State:PTF Id:Fix State:Type:Description:
  >  > bos:bos.rte.bind_cmds:4.1.4.0: : :C: :Binder and Loader Commands
  > 
  > 	I'm guessing that if we did "| awk -F: '{printf$3}'" it would get
  > us the "Level" which should be the right number to check.
I think so.  Though as you note it is not clear what the field will look
like with the linker patch installed.

For reference here's what I get on two of our older aix boxes:

#Package Name:Fileset:Level:State:PTF Id:Fix State:Type:Description:
bos:bos.rte.bind_cmds:4.1.3.0: : :C:F:Binder and Loader Commands

#Package Name:Fileset:Level:State:PTF Id:Fix State:Type:Description:
bos:bos.rte.bind_cmds:4.1.4.0: : :C: :Binder and Loader Commands

And on our 4.2 box:

#Package Name:Fileset:Level:State:PTF Id:Fix State:Type:Description:
bos:bos.rte.bind_cmds:4.2.0.0: : :C: :Binder and Loader Commands

  > 1.  Is bos.rte.bind_cmds the right fileset?
  > 2.  Is field #3 the right field to check?
  > 3.  What does the output look like when the patch is installed?
  > 	I don't know if the bos.rte.bind_cmds is replaced with a new
  > 	version row or a second row appears after the first.
  > 	Should I just pipe it thought tail -1 to get the right row?
  > 4.  Assuming we are looking at the correct data, what values signify
  > 	we have the patch and which ones signify we don't have it?
One thought would be to add -minimal-toc for any aix 4.1.x box where x <
whatever version has the fixed linker bundled with the system.

Yes, it will cause us to generate poorer code on those older aix boxes, but 
since those older versions of aix less and less popular I don't think that's
a bad compromise.

  > 	Once David answers the above questions, I can hack something up. 
  > What's your feeling on the best way to implement this and the place to
  > put it?
  > 
  > 	I'm thinking we set X_CFLAGS in x-aix41 to something like this:
  > 
  > X_CFLAGS=`if [ x@minimal_toc@ != x -a x$(BOOT_CFLAGS) != x ] ; echo '-mmini
  > mal-toc' ; fi`
  > 
  > where @minimal_toc@ is replaced by an autoconf test using lslpp.  (The
  > check on BOOT_CFLAGS makes sure we are in stage2 or later.)
  > 
  > 	In the x-aix31 case we don't need to check lslpp according to
  > David, so we'd just make sure we are in stage2 or later.
Seems reasonable.

jeff