Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

just for testing..new version (Developers)

posted by iw2evk, Magenta (Italy), 16.11.2013, 13:49

>
> I keep wanting to reply but always flake out at the last minute. Computers
> are a delicate art, and I'm not claiming to be an expert.
Mhh, imagine the difficulty for me ;)
As you know i've make many attempt before obtain a valid executable from DJGPP..
And the help/FAQ for djgpp seem "tailored" for expert, not for very beginners

>
> I've not rebuild Links. I had no reason to do so. And I also don't have (or
> know how to setup) a packet driver for any of my native DOS installs.
> Hence, I've only tested Links under VirtualBox + FreeDOS + emulated packet
> driver. I don't have 32-bit XP anymore either, so I can't compile it (and
> certainly not in raw DOS, not without heavy patching, ./configure doesn't
> work there) except maybe cross-compiling (Ozkan's build) or DOSEMU.
> Presumably DOSEMU would work best, but I've not been motivated enough. (I
> would be almost curious to know what Mikulas used, but I somehow doubt he
> wants my email queries, even if he is apparently sympathetic to DOS and
> DJGPP. Most people just aren't helpful.)
I've try to compile under puppy linux with DOSemu + djgpp, but it's a P.i.t.a. to configure/install..
So i've installed djgpp on my DOS only notebbok and on my workplace under win XP (no admin privileges).

> http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links-dos/
>
> Problem #1: Deciding whether to recompile or not. I'd say no since there is
> already a prebuilt package. Well, and also, all that ./configure *nix
> bullcrap is such a pain. So it's not like it's easy. Maybe if you knew it
> was too slow for your own use (or just really really bored), it might be
> worthwhile. However, you keep saying "pentium", which normally means i586,
> which is not supported by most people (e.g. Fedora) anymore. "pentiumpro"?
> I seriously doubt you have a real PPro sitting around, but who knows. And
> "-mtune=generic" probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Okay, so
> both of those (more or less) just mean "i686", so you could (roughly) just
> say "-march=i686" and achieve the same result. "generic" usually means
> modern and popular machines only (presumably Core2 and friends), which is
> contradictory to "pentiumpro", which is quite old by now. If you're only
> optimizing for yourself, I'd suggest "-march=native". But since you're
> redistributing this .EXE (though, no offense, I don't see the advantage), I
> wouldn't recommend anything using i686 (CMOVxx), and I heavily doubt such
> optimizations are worth the incompatibility for older machines. So
> honestly, for redistributing, I'd suggest "-mtune=generic" only, nothing
> else.
I've download the packege from links download page.In package exist a mk-dos
file for autoconfigure/make with 3 possibity : textual, graphic lite, graphic full.
But on my djgpp don't work : chrashes at end of configure step.So i've created the sh script and on my dos only pc work random, on my workplace pc work fine (Djgpp love win , ever if is a DOs apps!)
As explained i don't have found in the net many info regarding swith in djgpp work.
Example -o swith differs from gcc :max number it's -o3 , rather then -o6 in gcc
regarding -march=pemtimpro -tune=generic : i've copy this setting from one of others autoconfigure-make files supplied with links package.

>
> Problem #2: Recompiling. What dependencies? Didn't Mikulas patch some
> things (e.g. Watt-32)? It would've probably been better to keep the changes
> (in patch) separate than having yet another .ZIP to confuse people. The
> .ZIPs of OpenSSL and Watt-32 on DJGPP mirrors don't have such patches, and
> that will just confuse people even more. I've not looked, though, so I
> don't know how necessary those changes were. But at least he recently (Oct.
> 28) put "all-packages/" subdir on his site, which has (presumably) all the
> DJGPP packages you'd need to rebuild (though I question the point of some
> of the specific versions and utils).
I've used the files placed on my request from Mik in a directory now removed in link /dos subdirectory on links site.
But the patch it's not a solution.I suppose the version of wattcp usedon links have problem :in fact older version of links and arachne/Dillodos work best V.s. this version. I want to recompile using a older version of wattcp
for test if is possible to solve this issue..


>
> Problem #3: GNU AutoTools don't even work as well as they used to, esp. for
> DJGPP and other non-supported, non-POSIX targets. If it worked, I wouldn't
> complain, but it can't even do that. Well, what did you expect, it relies
> on way too many *nix-isms (by design) to ever work anywhere else. If you
> really care about portability to non-POSIX systems, don't rely so heavily
> on POSIX tools (obviously?? but people still do it!).
>
> I'm not even sure I understand how to use it correctly, so this may be
> wrong, but this is how I weakly thought it was supposed to be used:
>

I don't have a sugegstion for this ..and no have understand exactly hoe djgpp work

> ./configure CPPFLAGS="-I/watt32/inc -L/watt32/lib" LDLIBS="-lwatt"
> CFLAGS="-g -O2 -mtune=generic" --enable-graphics --without-utf8
>
> That's just an example, obviously you have to adjust it for SSL as well.
> You really don't even need to worry about CFLAGS, it should be good enough
> for average use by default. Anyways, if direly needed, just manually tweak
> the resulting (generated) Makefiles later. Or do 'make CFLAGS="-g -O2
> -mtune=\"generic\"' or whatever.
>
> I don't know if this helps. I don't know if I said it correctly. Maybe I'll
> try rebuilding later, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Ideally Mikulas
> should "probably" put all the generated Makefiles (config.h, etc.) in a
> separate .ZIP (i.e. preconfigured) so that normal DJGPP developers don't
> have to "./configure" (since that is such a pain).
Actually no makefiles are supplied, only mk-dos file for autoconfigure/make , but it's a good start!
Mikulas have reply to all my question (also the more stupid for a expert), unfortunly have a delay on reply time ( i suppose it' s busy for others work).
Have you try to suggest this ideas to Mik?

Finally, i've build this version for test the reply of links on Pentium PC (386/486 hare Historical machine, also for dos users).
So i choose to configure not for a specific Core , but for generic processor.
I hope in the future to find a list of switch explained on web for "best optimize".

Roberto iw2evk

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22762 Postings in 2122 Threads, 402 registered users (2 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum