Wine on Sparc

[Chuck Hall]

> Chuck Hall wrote:
>> Well it looks good.  I did get a few failures on the patching, but it
>> wnet
>> through 'make depend' without a problem.
>>
>> Now I run into the problem in kthread.c:
>> sed -e 's, at bindir\@,/usr/local/bin,g' -e
>> 's, at dlldir\@,/usr/local/lib/wine,g' -e 's, at PACKAGE_STRING\@,Wine
>> 20050524,g' ./wine.man.in >wine.man || (rm -f wine.man && false)
>> gcc -c -I. -I. -I../include -I../include    -Wall -pipe
>> -fno-strict-aliasing -gstabs+ -Wpointer-arith  -g -O2 -o kthread.o
>> kthread.c
>> kthread.c:322:3: #error You must implement wine_pthread_init_current_teb
>> for your platform
>> kthread.c:361:3: #error wine_pthread_get_current_teb not defined for
>> this
>> architecture
>> kthread.c: In function `wine_pthread_get_current_teb':
>> kthread.c:340: warning: 'ret' might be used uninitialized in this
>> function
>> *** Error code 1
>> make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `kthread.o'
>> Current working directory /tmp/wine-20050524/loader
>> *** Error code 1
>> The following command caused the error:
>> cd loader && make
>> make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `loader'
>>
>> Guess this is the next problem to work on :)
>
> Sounds like configure isn't detecting things properly.  It should be
> detecting '_lwp_create' and '_lwp_self', thus defining HAVE__LWP_CREATE
> and HAVE__LWP_SELF (in addition to HAVE_SYS_LWP_H).  Check your
> config.log to see what's going on.
>
> I did have problems with this stuff in older versions of wine, and I
> actually hacked the configure scripts to use wine-pthread instead of
> wine-kthread.  I don't recall the exact reasons, but it wine-kthread
> seems to be working fine for me now.

Started to go through this and found something intresting.  lwp.h does
exist and is found, so HAVE_SYS_LWP_H is defined.  The test for
_lwp_create fails.  Looking a bit deeper I found that the lwp.h for
Solaris 9 is different from the one in Solaris 10 (which is what I am
using).  Based on this and something I read awhile ago, I belive that Sun
is attempting to phase out the lwp stuff on Solaris.

It looks like a workaround will need to be created for _lwp_create.  I
will look into this and see what is the "official" way to write the code
now, if any.  Also a workaround will need to be made for all other _lwp_*
calls that no longer exist.

Have Fun!
Chuck Hall