This is an archive of CompuServe forum messages from 1985 to 1995, as saved in transcripts by John Foust.
Search Results (359 messages)
#A2090 and Quantum
Message #112854
If anyone can tell me how to configure an A2090 with a Quantum ProDrive 80s (80meg scsi) I'd appreciate it. I received the card with no manual. Mountlists, prep info, anything welcome. Thanks, Brett \exit
Lattice vs. Manx
Message #100990
Manx can link in amiga objuect files, has been able to for a long time. Manx library code was always much smaller than lattice's, this had a lot to do with the smaller code manx generated. Manx register conventions were non-standard, but lattice uses them now, resulting in much faster…
ArpAlloc () doesn't have two return values, when it returns, it returns the actual value of the tracker to you, so you don't need to get it, because you already have it. Just use the pointer returned from ArpAlloc (), and you will be fine. This is a feature that…
Yup, but always glad for the comments…
I mean, it's already done in the not yeat released next version. This was implied by the context of earlier exchanges, sorry to have mislead you. BTW, how important is it to you to have RUN work like it does now? That's the problem with redirection. Currently, I have it…
Now now, I clearly recall you disapproved of Manx for including a debugger, since, as I recall, it "encouraged sloppy programming". Now that Lattice includes a debugger, it's ok? What happens if Lattice decides to add an asm () keyword? There goes your last argument… sdb
A little respect for history would be nice. Lattice didn't begin to improve their compiler until they adopted many of the innovations which Manx introduced, such as a good selection of registers for the compiler to use (early lattice used a6 as the frame pointer, for example), ability to merge…
#9319-
#AShell
Message #9378
That's an interesting idea. I wonder how often it would get used, extensions aren't too popular with a lot of folks, it seems. thanks for the comment, sdb
Actually, I believe it is a pip bug. sdb
Don, The discussion is about shell expansion vs non-shell expansion, not rm. Rm has nothing to do with it. Another example is mv, why can't you do "mv *.c *.x" on a unix system? Because the shell expands the wildcards for you. Would it be desirable for this to occur?…
I think we basically are in agreement, I certainly agree with you about grep vs search. Still, unix commands have been noted for their inconsistant argument conventions. It's gotten better now with the getopt's library routine, but still…… llater sdb
My point was to point out a drawback to the traditional unix way of doing things, not to discuss whether or not rm * should be allowed without confirming. There are other examples where shell expansion falls short in functionality. Also, it is not enough for rm to simply count…
That is strange… Only thing I can think is that your some how not getting conman mounted… If you want to take the trouble to mail me the files (startup-sequence boot files, mount list, and a directory listing of your boot disk) I'll try to duplicate the problem here. sdb
Not to mention it is likely we will see $3000 dollar unix systems from sun in the next year or two… sdb
But that seems more complex (at least to me) not less. Why not have the external parsing routine be contained in a library, thus enforcing consistancy, but called on by each individual program, so that they can handle the various cases intelligently? This seems the best solution to me. The…
My point was that rm can't ask you if want to delete an entire directory (rm *) because it doesn't know you typed (rm *), it only sees a lits of files generated by the shell. I have certainly typed rm * and regretted it, I expect I am not…
The shell cannot (and should not) impose any ordering on the commands, that means there can be no distinction (on the part of the shell) between, say: cat *.c *.x and mv *.c *.x In the first, all files ending in .c and .x will be displayed, in the second,…
Untrue, there are many restrictions imposed by shell expansion. Take the case for mv (rename). You cannot do mv *.c *.x on unix systems and have it make any sense at all. The reason for this is because the shell and not the command expand the arguments. In order to…
As a big unix fan, there was a time I would have agreed with you, but the truth is there are a lot of advantages to *not* having wildcard expansion done in the shell. One of the biggest advantages is in the case of rm *, unix systems will happily…
I suspect you are activating conman *after* you start ashell, therefore you get a con: or newcon: window, not a conman one. Once you are in ash, have you tried ASHell again? If so, does the new shell have a conman window? Just make sure you mount or setcon or…
You can't read about it, it happens in the bcpl startup code which is at the beginning of all the bcpl startup programs. I discovered it by examining the startup code. It doesn't fragment memory any more than any other middling allocation, my point was that it is not needed.…
butting in… don't forget that the cbm commands from echo to dir *start* by allocating enough memory to copy the global vector table for themselves. That's not 17k, but it's memory fragging and grabbing that doesn't need to be happen'n. butting out…
That's correct, I think the significant bits issue is only significant for InitStruct () (exec), mainly it's a C language issue, APTR comes down to a **char, when it should have been an unsigned long, or something like that, haven't actually looked at types.h for a long time. For assembly,…
#34489-
#ARP Includes
Message #34751
A CPTR is just a ULONG (APTR done right). It's defined in new amiga includes (not so new actually, 1.2 or so).
With branches or word offsets from a table base don't have to be relocated on a load, but a table of 32bit absolute addresses has to be relocated by the loader, so the overhead is something like hunkmarker + 4bytes for zero end marker + hunkend + 8 bytes for…
Yes, but using bra.s or word offsets can save you about 20 bytes or so of relocation info per reference. a hundred entry vector table is actually costing you many more disk bytes, that's something to consider also.
Well, that's my point Larry. If you don't like Lisp, that shouldn't be the only way to do IPC, ditto with anything else, including ARexx. None of my comments should be construed as criticism of ARexx's performance, which I am sure is probably excellent, considering who wrote it – I…
#No RUN
Message #134208
Well, I am not really in the market for a PCB Cad system, but I believe the point of the thread was requiring the user to place arp.library on the disk. If you can actually spawn background processes with ARexx and then kill the parent (for which I am taking…
#134099-
No RUN
Message #134162
So your are going to require your customers to plunk down an extra $50.00 bucks so your software can spawn off background processes? Sounds like a bargain to me, Ben. I have looked closely enough at ARexx to know that it is not for me, no criticism of Hawes et…
#133865-
#No RUN
Message #134092
This all sounds familiar, Ben. As I said before, give me a two or twenty line C program that will run a C: program, such as TYPE or Echo from either CLI or Workbench, sending it's output to a file specified by the parent, and where it makes no difference…
#133865-
#No RUN
Message #134092
This all sounds familiar, Ben. As I said before, give me a two or twenty line C program that will run a C: program, such as TYPE or Echo from either CLI or Workbench, sending it's output to a file specified by the parent, and where it makes no difference…
Sounds like he was using the original lattice compiler, with the startup code written by Amiga, where stdin and stdout where (were, sorry) defined as LONGS and set by calls to Open() urr, Output() Input(). Only thing I can suggest is to see if the old startup code is still…
Larry, Perhaps we are not communicating, but I believe it was you who criticized C for rearranging expressions which are associative and commutative, this is clearly an optimization. However, if you wish to place this in the realm of 'left to the compiler writer' options, you have to place other…
Right on Larry! Bring back the 1000 keyboard.
Well, you could say the same for the potential rearrangement of equal precedence operators, that is clearly a compiler optimization as well. If you include one, seems to me you have to include the other. In any case, thank goodness you can ask C to give you what you want…
#132538-
#Stack size calc
Message #132669
I beg to differ, but C is one of the few languages where you can do something like while( dev->regnum < 0) ; and have the compiler generate what you want. Most other languages will translate this into something quite different, because the do atomatic optimization. Things like this have…
#132565-
Stack size calc
Message #132666
I know.
I wasn't aware of your preference for upward growing stacks and while HLL langdo eliminate the need to 'understand the machine' they don't eliminate the need for efficient implementation of HLL's, which on the 68xxx means downwards growning stacks. I agree that func(a, b, c) eval order is a problem,…
I wasn't aware of your preference for upward growing stacks and while HLL langdo eliminate the need to 'understand the machine' they don't eliminate the need for efficient implementation of HLL's, which on the 68xxx means downwards growning stacks. I agree that func(a, b, c) eval order is a problem,…
I would say it has far more to do with illiterate BCPL programmers not understanding the 68000, or are you suggesting that C and assembly etc., language stacks should be growing upwards also??? func(a, b, c) is a problem on upward or downward stacks, at least as far as evaluation…
I would say it has far more to do with illiterate BCPL programmers not understanding the 68000, or are you suggesting that C and assembly etc., language stacks should be growing upwards also??? func(a, b, c) is a problem on upward or downward stacks, at least as far as evaluation…
#131109-
What's c++
Message #131510
"This is a string" is an array, technically, which is automagically promoted to a pointer to char when the conditions are right. Try sizeof("this is a string") as opposed to sizeof(ptr). (Just trying to confuse further, that's all). sdb
#131109-
What's c++
Message #131510
"This is a string" is an array, technically, which is automagically promoted to a pointer to char when the conditions are right. Try sizeof("this is a string") as opposed to sizeof(ptr). (Just trying to confuse further, that's all). sdb
Yes, it makes sense. Other people have asked that, but not exactly sure how to do it. The current plan is to put a few new data types (menu, screen, stuff like that) into icon to provide some basic intuition functions, a few graphics functions, etc., for the next release.…
Yes, it makes sense. Other people have asked that, but not exactly sure how to do it. The current plan is to put a few new data types (menu, screen, stuff like that) into icon to provide some basic intuition functions, a few graphics functions, etc., for the next release.…
New somewhat improved code done with 3.6 should be along in a few days, if you can wait for it. sdb
New somewhat improved code done with 3.6 should be along in a few days, if you can wait for it. sdb
You need to do a link line like ln file.o arp.o c.lib m.lib etc., of course, you may not need m.lib, it is there only for illustration. If you are opening arp in your own programs, with OpenLibrary(), then you need to do ln file.o a.o c.lib m.lib etc. Note…
Oh I see. I have to say I think you are letting your dislike for C remove a very useful addition to assembler programming on the amiga. I find it much easier to edit something declared with a STRUCTURE macro, where all the adjustments are made automagically, than to change…
Oh I see. I have to say I think you are letting your dislike for C remove a very useful addition to assembler programming on the amiga. I find it much easier to edit something declared with a STRUCTURE macro, where all the adjustments are made automagically, than to change…
Page 1 of 8