Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

"glennmcc . org/rayandrews" files | source code | WATCOM (Users)

posted by rayandrews, 19.02.2011, 16:55

>
> Glennmcc disagrees, see other forum ;-)
Ok, we can argue about it there. As I said, the exact amount is
hard to say. As it is now, my core uses maxed out stack (64K) although
32K is probably fine, also, several buffers are now bigger than needed.
At times my core has given 230K free. Anyway, you will see for yourself.
Load TSR's till 'free memory' is almost zero, and there will be no
problem.

>
> CORE.EXE 2008-07-29 So your distro is even older than Glennmcc's
> 2008-Nov/Dec release :-(
>
I haven't done any work for a few months.


>
> The latest one has none.

Better not play with the latest cores, they are buggy fo sure!

>
> BTW, is there a system behind your file naming ? I can't discover any ...
>

I should have a better system. But names for cores follow a very careful
pattern: "2k-45"

'2k' is 'major build' this indicates a new keywords file, and that I have
backed up to a new arachive directory here. No one needs to know about
that but me, of course, but I do need to know it.

'45' is 'minor build', after '99' it cycles back to '10'. In my sources
backups are done with just two letters:

main.c45
init.c45
guievent.c45


thus, I have dozens of 'guievent.c45' over the years. The 'major build' is
thus the name of the directory in which any set of backups can be found:


\arachne\core\builds\2j\*.c??
\2k\*.c??
etc.


Anyway, it lets me keep track of everything. I can restore any build going
back years in just a few seconds.



> I see that you removed the libraries and turned the source into one "flat"
> package of C and H and ASM files, but no compiling instructions or
> requirements. Any chance to upgrade the compiler to WATCOM ? WATCOM could
Right, it is perfectly flat, no special compiler pragmas or anything. This
made it possible to integrate the libs much more tightly, since there's no
need to go through 'official channels' to get at the functionality.

> compile both an 8086 version and a 32 bit version too :-)

Well, these are all things to explore. I've never used WATCOM myself, but
of course it's all open to discussion. I had been thinking about DJGPP,
and for that I was trying, as I said, to get the ASM ported to NASM, and I
did some work, but much more to do. Especialy, I don't know how to edit
the ASM for 32 bit instructions.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22762 Postings in 2122 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum