Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Nicholas Wourms]

Hi,

Having discussed this with others on the Cygwin list, I'd 
like to chime in on this thread.  You said:

"Ugh. That means that more than just tcl and tk was messed 
up by the "merge". [You know, I've often considered starting 
over with the "port" to cygwin for 8.3 -- or with Mumit 
Khan's work. It can't be nearly as botched as what we have 
now.]"

If you do go this course, might I recomend that you use 
Cygwin/XFree for the gui front end?  The Cygwin/XFree 
project is just a few months away from rootless mode.  You 
could have a tcl script automatically start the rootless x 
in the background when the programmer starts up gdb.  This 
would make supporting Tk much easier because you'd no longer 
have this limbo state between the Unix and Win32 
implimentations of TclTk.  The added benefit for some of us 
is that it makes porting unix Tk based apps & libraries a 
whole *hell* of a lot easier for the rest of us.  You should 
see in one of the following messages a patch to add such 
functionality.  Also of note is that the quest for Cygwin 
mkfifo is back up and running, so hopefully we'll have that 
soon.  The serial communications function that used to be 
missing in Cygwin is now complete.

As for your other question, this thread has somewhat 
summerized what needs to be done to merge his port in these 
messages [I'd reccomend reading the whole thread though]:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-06/msg00422.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-06/msg00483.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-06/msg00552.html

I'm sure if you contacted Mumit, he'd be happy to assist in 
merging the changes, as he pointed out in one of his posts.

Hopefully that will answer some of your earlier questions. 
I really hope you'll considier this.  I'd do it myself, but 
I'm somewhat over-extended at the moment (I'm sure you are 
too).  Anyhow, feel free to disagree with my evaluation...

Cheers,
Nicholas

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Christopher Faylor]

[Warning: Reply-To set to insight mailing list]
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:20:40PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>"Ugh. That means that more than just tcl and tk was messed 
>up by the "merge". [You know, I've often considered starting 
>over with the "port" to cygwin for 8.3 -- or with Mumit 
>Khan's work. It can't be nearly as botched as what we have 
>now.]"
>
>If you do go this course, might I recomend that you use 
>Cygwin/XFree for the gui front end?

We really can't require people to install X in order to
get a graphical debugger for cygwin.

cgf

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Keith Seitz]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> >If you do go this course, might I recomend that you use 
> >Cygwin/XFree for the gui front end?
> 
> We really can't require people to install X in order to
> get a graphical debugger for cygwin.

True, but there is no reason why we can't play nice and allow people to 
use XFree and cygwin, is there? It's just a matter of configury, right?

Keith

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:47:47AM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >If you do go this course, might I recomend that you use 
>> >Cygwin/XFree for the gui front end?
>> 
>> We really can't require people to install X in order to
>> get a graphical debugger for cygwin.
>
>True, but there is no reason why we can't play nice and allow people to 
>use XFree and cygwin, is there? It's just a matter of configury, right?

I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure seems like
focusing on fixing the native insight is a much much higher priority.

And, *I'm* not going to be releasing an X version of insight, that's for
sure.

cgf

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Keith Seitz]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure seems like
> focusing on fixing the native insight is a much much higher priority.

Well, sure. Making the native work is a higher priority for me, too.

> And, *I'm* not going to be releasing an X version of insight, that's for
> sure.

It sounds like we're agreed, there's no reason to exclude the possibility 
to allow this... It's just a matter of testing for X. If it can't find X 
_and_ we have a cygwin host, then build "native". If it's unix, we bail. 
Doesn't sound that tough...

Now if we could only fix tcl/tk...
Keith

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Nicholas Wourms]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:

 > We really can't require people to install X in order to
 > get a graphical debugger for cygwin.

Please understand that all I'm trying to do is help 
facilitate a reasonable solution to a current problem.  I 
mean no disrespect or malice in my intentions.  Can we 
please keep this friendly, as I know this subject tends to 
bring out emotional debate.  Anyhow, I think co-existance 
*is* the solution, rather then forcing people to install X 
if they don't want it (or leaving it the way it is). 
However, as more and more people begin using Cygwin/XFree, 
they'll want to run their Tk apps in X.  They'll want thier 
tcl scripts to work like they do under linux  We shouldn't 
ignore their needs as well.

 > I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure
 > seems like focusing on fixing the native insight is a 
much > much higher priority.

I agree, having a working insight would be nice.  Still, you 
did tell people that further discussion of this should be 
done on this list.  That is what I'm doing.  My intent is 
not to de-rail the goal of a working insight.  Anyhow, after 
a brief discussion with Chuck, having two versions would be 
the best compromise.

 > And, *I'm* not going to be releasing an X version of
 > insight, that's for sure.

If we can come up with a reasonable solution which will 
co-exist with the w32api insight, would that make you more 
receptive?  It would be silly and dangerous for two people 
to maintain versions of insight/tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl which 
differ in functionality.

KS>It sounds like we're agreed, there's no reason to exclude 
KS>the possibility to allow this... It's just a matter of 
KS>testing for X. If it can't find X _and_ we have a cygwin 
KS>host, then build "native". If it's unix, we bail.
KS>Doesn't sound that tough...

Why not go the original route?  To allow for coexistance of 
insight/insight-tcl,tk,tix,itcl,blt with a cygwin-native 
tcl,tk,tix,itcl,blt (which leverages X), lets look at some 
facts:

1)The insight versions of tcltk&family are really only 
useful for insight, as they screw up any attempts to 
externally leverage them (Perl-Tk, PyTK, etc.).

2)A fully posix-compliant, w32api-free, version of 
tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl would be perfect for a default set tcltk 
tools for cygwin.  Not only would it be good for porting 
scripts, but expect would run much faster not having to make 
external calls to cygpath.  If people really want to run 
tcl/tk scripts inside the windows gui, they will use 
ActiveState tcltk.

3)Tcltk is structured such that segregating different 
versions is relatively painless.

=============================================================

What might work is to offer two packages:
* gdb.exe -> native w32api insight linked against 
w32api/cygwin based tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl

* gdbx.exe -> native cygwin insight linked against 
cygwin/posix/Xfree based tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl.

So why not install them like this:

w32api based insight + w32api tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl:
--------------------------------------------------------------
1)All runtime libraries and binaries prefixed with "cyg" 
(i.e. cygtclsh, cygtcl83.dll, etc.) except gdb, which would 
still be gdb.  Install location would be /bin.
2)All import libraries would be prefixed with "cyg" (i.e. 
cygtcl83.dll.a, cygtcl83.a, etc.).
3)All insight & tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl/redhat junk would go in 
/usr/share/insight instead of just /usr/share.
4)The insight & tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl headers would go in 
/usr/include/insight instead of just /usr/include.
5)The tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh would go in /lib/insight 
instead of /lib.
6)tclConfig.sh tkConfig.sh would be built to reflect these 
settings.

native insight + posix/Xfree based tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl:
--------------------------------------------------------------
1)All runtime libraries would be prefixed with "cygx" (i.e. 
cygxtcl83.dll) and gdb would be named gdbx.exe.  However 
tclsh, wish, etc. would retain their same names.  Install 
location would be /bin.
2)Since exe's cannot be symlinked on cygwin, all versioned 
exe's would be duplicated with non-versioned names (i.e. 
tclsh83.exe -> tclsh.exe).  This allows for detection by 
configure scripts.
3)Import libraries would retain the default naming 
conventions (libtcl83.dll.a, etc).
4)All insight & tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl/redhat junk would go in 
the default /usr/share.
5)The insight & tcl/tk/tix/blt/itcl headers would go in the 
default /usr/include.
6)The tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh would go in the default /lib.

===============================================================

I know I haven't adressed Expect and DejaGnu, as I'm still 
thinking of how best to fit them into this scheme.  Of 
course, this is just my opinion on what makes sense to me. 
I'm sure others will have some things to add or remove from it.

KS>Now if we could only fix tcl/tk...

Well hopefully those links I provided earlier might have 
some relevant information, even if it is used to patch up 
the current implementation.

I look forward to contiuing discussion on this subject and 
to hopefully provide some patches (although the tcl/tk 
internals are not areas of my expertise).

Also, please CC: me as I haven't subscribed to the list.

Cheers,
Nicholas

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:24:48AM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:20:40PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>>If you do go this course, might I recomend that you use Cygwin/XFree
>>for the gui front end?
>
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>We really can't require people to install X in order to get a graphical
>>debugger for cygwin.
>
>Please understand that all I'm trying to do is help facilitate a
>reasonable solution to a current problem.  I mean no disrespect or
>malice in my intentions.  Can we please keep this friendly, as I know
>this subject tends to bring out emotional debate.

I've put back the part of your email where you suggested that using
XFree86 was an alternative way to get insight working on Windows.

You are inexplicably inferring some kind of emotional response from my
simple statement of fact.  You would be well advised to stick to actual
issues and avoid admonitions based on supposition.

>>I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure seems like
>>focusing on fixing the native insight is a much much higher priority.
>
>I agree, having a working insight would be nice.  Still, you did tell
>people that further discussion of this should be done on this list.

So, discuss away.  I think I made my end of the views clear.  That's how
discussions work, right?

>That is what I'm doing.  My intent is not to de-rail the goal of a
>working insight.

Well, IMO, suggesting that cygwin users would want to install X in order
to do debugging really is rather of a derailment of the issue at hand.

>Anyhow, after a brief discussion with Chuck, having two versions would
>be the best compromise.

I doubt that few in the insight mailing list know who "Chuck" is or why
his opinion would hold any weight.  However, for the record, I think it
is clear that quoting "and so and so agrees with me" doesn't really
advance the discussion very much.

I really don't see what X has to do with the discussion of fixing
tcl/tk/insight.  It seems to me like you are dragging an entirely
different issue into this discussion.

>I look forward to contiuing discussion on this subject and to hopefully
>provide some patches (although the tcl/tk internals are not areas of my
>expertise).

cgf

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Nicholas Wourms]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:24:48AM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:20:40PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>>
>>>If you do go this course, might I recomend that you use Cygwin/XFree
>>>for the gui front end?
>>
>>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>>We really can't require people to install X in order to get a graphical
>>>debugger for cygwin.
>>
>>Please understand that all I'm trying to do is help facilitate a
>>reasonable solution to a current problem.  I mean no disrespect or
>>malice in my intentions.  Can we please keep this friendly, as I know
>>this subject tends to bring out emotional debate.
> 
> 
> I've put back the part of your email where you suggested that using
> XFree86 was an alternative way to get insight working on Windows.
> 
> You are inexplicably inferring some kind of emotional response from my
> simple statement of fact.  You would be well advised to stick to actual
> issues and avoid admonitions based on supposition.

No actually I'm referring to the previous times this was 
discussed on the cygwin mailing list.  Each time, things got 
a little ugly, my intent was to head this type of reaction 
off at the pass.  I was only trying to be polite.

> 
>>>I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure seems like
>>>focusing on fixing the native insight is a much much higher priority.
>>
>>I agree, having a working insight would be nice.  Still, you did tell
>>people that further discussion of this should be done on this list.
> 
> 
> So, discuss away.  I think I made my end of the views clear.  That's how
> discussions work, right?
> 

One would hope so, still I feel like I had to justify my post.

>>That is what I'm doing.  My intent is not to de-rail the goal of a
>>working insight.
> 
> 
> Well, IMO, suggesting that cygwin users would want to install X in order
> to do debugging really is rather of a derailment of the issue at hand.

Jeeze, it isn't like asking for 100MB space, or even 10. 
However if you read the entire post, I was recanting my 
original position on that idea.

> 
>>Anyhow, after a brief discussion with Chuck, having two versions would
>>be the best compromise.
> 
> 
> I doubt that few in the insight mailing list know who "Chuck" is or why
> his opinion would hold any weight.  However, for the record, I think it
> is clear that quoting "and so and so agrees with me" doesn't really
> advance the discussion very much.

That was primarily aimed at you, you take it as you wish...

> I really don't see what X has to do with the discussion of fixing
> tcl/tk/insight.  It seems to me like you are dragging an entirely
> different issue into this discussion.

On the contrary, it has a lot to do with fixing tcl/tk's 
functionality in cygwin.  It also has to do with fixing the 
functionality in a way that a slow, but growing segment of 
the userbase desires.  Also, I was further elaborating in 
response to Keith's statements.

If I wasn't clear about this before, then let me be clear. 
My original post was a suggestion on how things could be 
improved if there was a plan to rework the tcl/tk 
implementation.

Cheers,
Nicholas

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Kai Ruottu]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:

> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>We really can't require people to install X in order to get a graphical
> >>debugger for cygwin.

 Basically this issue is about supporting Linux, not Windows. Which
one RedHat tries to do ?  I see the X11 being one way to finally get
a debugger for cygwin (and mingw), which one can remotely run on
Linux.

 AFAIK Cygwin shouldn't have much to do with 'supporting native-
Windows with using only the Win32-API', but trying to implement
Unix on Windows, so X11 belongs to this idea, not applications
using the native Win32-API. For this purpose there is the Mingw-
port.

> >>I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure seems like
> >>focusing on fixing the native insight is a much much higher priority.

 In all sanity the 'native' must mean Mingw, not Cygwin...

> Well, IMO, suggesting that cygwin users would want to install X in order
> to do debugging really is rather of a derailment of the issue at hand.

 They haven't understood the 'Cygwin' idea if they don't want to
convert their Windozes into Unixes and don't expect Cygwin really
doing this... As funny as it sounds, the Cygwin-users on the net
really are trying to use their Windoze/Cygwin's as 'Unixes', for
instance trying to build GNU-sources on this platform... And not
using Linux or something more Unix-like with Windoze-target cross-
tools for this purpose. Maybe they even try to build Insights on
Windoze/Cygwin...

> I really don't see what X has to do with the discussion of fixing
> tcl/tk/insight.  It seems to me like you are dragging an entirely
> different issue into this discussion.

 Years ago it was possible to start X11-apps on a single Solaris2
station and control these apps from Windoze-stations... If now
people want to start Insight on a Windoze-station and control it
from a Linux-station because all the GNU sources and development
tools, besides GDB now, are there, why RedHat is against this idea?
I assume Chris telling what the RedHat'ers think about this issue...

 Many Linux-users think Windoze being an 'embedded' system, which
is not capable to serve as a sane development/build environment.
Normally the debugger works in the sane host, but in the Windoze-
case it has been obligatory to run it on the  target system...

 But are there some serious problems in using a Windoze-station
as an X11-client when Cygwin/X11 has been installed there?

Cheers, Kai

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:41:17AM +0300, Kai Ruottu wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>We really can't require people to install X in order to get a graphical
>>>>debugger for cygwin.
>
>Basically this issue is about supporting Linux, not Windows.  Which one
>RedHat tries to do?

No, that is not the issue at all.  The issue for this thread was getting
insight working on Windows with the current version of tcl/tk in
sourceware.

The discussion has been hijacked by people who want to talk about X but
X is really irrelevant to this particular discussion.

>I see the X11 being one way to finally get a debugger for cygwin (and
>mingw), which one can remotely run on Linux.

I am talking about fixing insight for Windows.  Insight has worked on
Windows for *years*.  There is no way in the world that anyone is going
to eliminate it's existing behavior.  That is so breathtakingly
ludicrous that I can't believe that anyone would even argue in its
favor.

Cygwin's XFree86 implementation is a wonderful thing.  It does not
necessarily work "out of the box", though.  So, I am not going to
say to any insight user "Oh, you want to debug?  Well, first you're
going to have to start X.  Doesn't work?  Ok.  Let's debug your X
and find out why."

If you want to argue that "someone" should offer insight/X in the cygwin
distribution or that the configury should be changed to allow an X
version for Windows then feel free.  Just don't argue that an X version
of insight will solve any existing insight problems because, there is no
evidence that this is the case.

I should point out that you will undoubtedly be very disappointed with
running your X version of insight remotely on linux since, unless you
are debugging another X application, all output will still be showing
up on your Windows system in console windows or Windows GUI screens.

So, in other words, to paraphrase:

"X11!"

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it
means."

>AFAIK Cygwin shouldn't have much to do with 'supporting native- Windows
>with using only the Win32-API', but trying to implement Unix on
>Windows, so X11 belongs to this idea, not applications using the native
>Win32-API.  For this purpose there is the Mingw- port.

You "K" wrong.  Cygwin does support running and debugging native windows
applications.  I use it for that regularly.  So do many others.

Mingw is not actually officially supported by insight/gdb.

>>>>I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure seems like
>>>>focusing on fixing the native insight is a much much higher priority.
>
>In all sanity the 'native' must mean Mingw, not Cygwin...

Ok.  If it makes you happy, change 'native' to 'cygwin' above.

>>Well, IMO, suggesting that cygwin users would want to install X in
>>order to do debugging really is rather of a derailment of the issue at
>>hand.
>
>They haven't understood the 'Cygwin' idea if they don't want to convert
>their Windozes into Unixes and don't expect Cygwin really doing this...
>As funny as it sounds, the Cygwin-users on the net really are trying to
>use their Windoze/Cygwin's as 'Unixes', for instance trying to build
>GNU-sources on this platform...  And not using Linux or something more
>Unix-like with Windoze-target cross- tools for this purpose.  Maybe
>they even try to build Insights on Windoze/Cygwin...

I think I know what Cygwin is used for and what its intentions are:

	  http://cygwin.com/who.html

>>I really don't see what X has to do with the discussion of fixing
>>tcl/tk/insight.  It seems to me like you are dragging an entirely
>>different issue into this discussion.
>
>Years ago it was possible to start X11-apps on a single Solaris2
>station and control these apps from Windoze-stations...  If now people
>want to start Insight on a Windoze-station and control it from a
>Linux-station because all the GNU sources and development tools,
>besides GDB now, are there, why RedHat is against this idea?  I assume
>Chris telling what the RedHat'ers think about this issue...

What is it with you freenet.hut.fi people?  You all seem to be missing
the point.  Or is it just .fi people?

Hopefully, you see the point here.  If you infer a Red Hat position from
people with redhat.com as their email address then you are generalizing
way too much.

I do run the cygwin project, so you can assume that I speak
authoritatively for that.  However, cygwin is extremely far from being a
core focus of Red Hat.  It isn't even sold as a product.  So, it is
unlikely that you could infer much of a Red Hat position from anything
that I say.

And, what have I said authoritatively here?  I've said that I think that
the priority should be fixing the current cygwin version of insight.
I've said that I, personally, have no interest in an X version and
wasn't personally going to be providing it.

As far as insight (and cygwin for that matter) is concerned, I devote MY
OWN TIME to the packaging, release, and bug fixing.  Red Hat is savvy
enough to understand that a business model where I sit around all day,
answering email, and packaging up insight wouldn't really fly but they
obviously have no problem with me doing things in my free time.  Also,
although Cygwin/XFree86 is not my project, I have actively supported it.

We *do* have customers who would be understandably perplexed if insight
started acting differently.  And I *know* that we will have existing
"net release" insight users who will not want to install X just to debug
things.  They already have a GUI desktop.  Whether you hate the Windows
interface or not there is no reason to force *them* to use X.

If someone else wants to provide an insight-for-X or a tcl-for-X for
Windows they are welcome to do so.  I see this as a major support
headache and, so, have no interest in doing this myself.  In fact,
you've amply demonstrated to me that there would be all sorts of
misconceptions surrounding the project.  I have enough to do without
taking on something where I have to explain "I understand that you
have an insight screen on your linux workstation but that doesn't
mean that debugging output from your application will show up there
too." on a daily basis.

>Many Linux-users think Windoze being an 'embedded' system, which is not
>capable to serve as a sane development/build environment.

Actually, I doubt that that is true.  Cygwin has been around for years.
It is a very popular project.

>Normally the debugger works in the sane host, but in the Windoze-
>case it has been obligatory to run it on the  target system...

But adding X awareness to insight doesn't solve this problem.

Also, you can easily use a Windows-hosted insight to debug target
applications on embedded boards.

You could even, with a not inconceivable amount of effort, probably
get gdbserver to run on Windows, allowing you to build a linux x
windows cross-build environment -- which is how things are normally
done in an "embedded situation".

>But are there some serious problems in using a Windoze-station as an
>X11-client when Cygwin/X11 has been installed there?

If you are asking questions about Cygwin/XFree86 then you should use
the cygwin-xfree mailing list.  Otherwise, I think I've answered this
above.

FWIW, I have said all that I care to about this subject.  I would be
interested in hearing what happens with Keith's (voluntary, unpaid)
efforts to incorporate Mumit Khan's patches into sourceware, though.

If you are interested in providing an insight for XFree86 package for
cygwin, then your first step would be to fix the insight configury
to allow this.  Then you'll need to go to the cygwin web page to
see what steps are required to submit a package.  It's really pretty
easy.

cgf

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Ton van Overbeek]

On Aug 30 tou wrote:
>I would be very, very grateful if someone would compare what Mumit did
>with what we have checked in. Maybe someone will find out why our
>versions are so problematic.
>
>(BTW, can you send me a pointer to Mumit's work?)

No anlysis (yet), but here is a pointer to Mumit's work:
http://www.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan/software/tcl/
and then go to the 'Tcl/Tk 8.3.4 + extensions for Cygwin' section.

Regards,

Ton van Overbeek

Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[LE GALLO Pierre OF/DSI/EXT]

Hi

I'm working on WinXP/cygwin, uname gives 1.3.12(0.54/3/2). Insight is 5.2.1

1) Insight build ok, and gracefully comes to life. BUT wish83 crashes. Saw a
patch from Keith somewhere, but
I suppose it's now in the current release, no? Wish83 from Khan works, do I
have to go into modifications K. made?

2) very strange behaviour of anchor (this one is special for Keith) in label
creation in srcwin.itb: even when created
without west orientation (center is default), label got left justified.

3) I stole libgui and gdbtk library (big parts of them) to put in my own
debugger for Akeso project. Well, I built itcl/itk libraries, but some bugs
remain (menu inverse
incorrectly and the like). Called from wish (Active or Khan patch) work
correctly, so problem comes from my build.

When I try :
gcc $(CFLAGS) dakeso.c -o dakeso -lcygitcl32 -lcygitk32 -lcygtk83 -lcygtcl83
produce a very neat core dump! CFLAGS is -g and includes.

To resume, I'm looking for a Khan like implementation WITH itcl/itk, for it
seems to me insight builds......only insight!

Pierre Le Gallo
OF/DSI/IT
------------------------------
+33 1 49 14 85 61
+33 6 84 96 04 98

Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1

[Keith Seitz]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, LE GALLO Pierre OF/DSI/EXT wrote:

> I'm working on WinXP/cygwin, uname gives 1.3.12(0.54/3/2). Insight is 5.2.1

Eew. You're a glutton for pain, eh? ;-) (Cygwin + Tcl/Tk8.3 from 
sources.redhat.com = _PAIN_)

> 1) Insight build ok, and gracefully comes to life. BUT wish83 crashes. Saw a
> patch from Keith somewhere, but
> I suppose it's now in the current release, no? Wish83 from Khan works, do I
> have to go into modifications K. made?

Yes, I've committed those patches. wish should no longer die.

> 2) very strange behaviour of anchor (this one is special for Keith) in label
> creation in srcwin.itb: even when created
> without west orientation (center is default), label got left justified.

I'm sure that its a merge casualty.

> 3) I stole libgui and gdbtk library (big parts of them) to put in my own
> debugger for Akeso project. Well, I built itcl/itk libraries, but some bugs
> remain (menu inverse
> incorrectly and the like). Called from wish (Active or Khan patch) work
> correctly, so problem comes from my build.

Ugh. That means that more than just tcl and tk was messed up by the 
"merge". [You know, I've often considered starting over with the "port" to 
cygwin for 8.3 -- or with Mumit Khan's work. It can't be nearly as botched 
as what we have now.]

> When I try :
> gcc $(CFLAGS) dakeso.c -o dakeso -lcygitcl32 -lcygitk32 -lcygtk83 -lcygtcl83
> produce a very neat core dump! CFLAGS is -g and includes.

Make sure that you are starting up and initializing the cygwin DLL 
properly. See gdb/gdbtk/plugins/rhabout/rhabout.c for an approach
which seem to work. (BTW, if you're using cygwin, please be aware 
of licensing issues. I don't know if your project is personal or 
commercial, but I thought I'd mention it to be safe.)

> To resume, I'm looking for a Khan like implementation WITH itcl/itk, for it
> seems to me insight builds......only insight!

I would be very, very grateful if someone would compare what Mumit did 
with what we have checked in. Maybe someone will find out why our versions 
are so problematic.

(BTW, can you send me a pointer to Mumit's work?)
Keith