Hi!
21-Дек-2006 18:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Ok, I may discuss at public, if you wish.
J> I do not wish, but all your email addresses are "invalid" and you refused to
J> use the nice EDR-DOS forum.
Do you try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 1. On your site, program versions nowhere mentioned, only in "news"
>> sometime.
J> no, see http://gra3/Jemm386.html
J> no, see http://www.japheth.de/Jemm386.html
http://www.japheth.de/HX.html
Find "2.1" -> not found
http://www.japheth.de/debxxf.html
Find "2.9.4" -> not found
http://www.japheth.de/dwnload4.html
Find "2.1" or "2.9.4" -> not found
>> 2. I see "Jemm386 ... based on the source of FreeDOS Emm386", but I not see
>> in JEMM normal build subsystem (which was at last included by Michael into
>> latest releases), which allows to compile sources by different compilers
>> with minimal efforts (to customize batch and makefiles).
J> I used a different build system, OW/TC/MSVC/DMC are all supported (with
J> "minimal" efforts :)).
Where I should specify path to my BC 3.1 or OW compiler (compare:
config.b)? Where described, which options/pathes are required to set, which
options may be changed, and how to do this (compare: config.b)?
Yes, skilled programmer may trace your makefiles (especially, there are
two makefiles) and develop/modify to own one, which will fit into his
environment, but this is _not_ "minimal" efforts.
>> 3. jemm doesn't includes some patches for emm386, which makes it more
>> compatible with different compilers. For example:
>> - asm mov ah,function
>> + asm mov ah,byte ptr [function]
J> I threw away all inline assembly code from the C part.
In yet only commented, but not removed.
>> 4. I compare latest version with previous to see the differences, and found:
>> This somewhat question of taste, but "je" and "jae" after "cmp" is much
>> better reflects _sense_ (logic) of code and, thus, should make it more
>> readable.
J> All right, but I doubt this is the main reason why not that many people are
J> able to understand the code.
Of course. But even skilled programmers (at least, me) slow down at
such points and try to understand, whan happen. Especially, they/I should
spend time to mentally translate, that "jnc" here mean "jae" (this
translation is not most trivial task).
>> 6. Is there reason to copy return address?
>> XCHG BX,[bp+2]
J> this is debug code to be used this way:
J> call rprintstr
J> db "something to print",0
Oops, sorry, I was inattentive here and not notice, that BX is used.
>> 7. There is code, which may be optimized. For example,
>> *wordout+*byteout+*nibout. Or:
>> @@ok:
>> mov AH,0 ; everything OK and finished
>> + clc
@@ok:
xor ah,ah ; everything OK and finished
;clc
>> [...]
>> inc al ;4 extra bytes for size + checksum?
>> shl al,2 ;4 bytes (makes Kyrandia 3 work [better]!?)
inc ax ; this is shorter, than "inc al"
shl al,2
>> [...]
>> + cmp eax,edx ; ensure no overflow from improper
>> current value
>> ja @@noadj2
>> + mov eax,edx
>> @@noadj2:
>> + sub eax,edx ; max - used == max available
sub eax,edx
jae @@noadj2
xor eax,eax
@@noadj2:
J> ??? I dont get it
See above.
>> +void fmemset(char far *s1, char c, int count)
>> void fmemcpy(char far *s1,char far *s2,int len)
J> optimising the C part is irrelevant IMO
Why not?
>> 8. Same (about conditional jumps after cmp and about optimization) with
>> DEBUG, which you change. I compare 99i with 99g and found:
>> +ii:
>> + mov bl,0
>>> + mov ah,al
>>> + and ah,TOUPPER
mov ah,TOUPPER
and ah,al
>> + cmp ah,'W'
>>> + jne ii_1
>>> + inc bx
>>> + call skipwhite
>>> + jmp ii_2
>> +ii_1:
>> + cmp [machine],byte 3
>> + jb ii_2
>> + cmp ah,'D'
>> + jne ii_2
>> + inc bx
>> + inc bx
>> + call skipwhite
>> +ii_2:
>> + call getword ;get word into DX
>> [...]
>>> + cmp bl,1
>>> + jz ii_3
>>> + cmp bl,2
>>> + jz ii_4
>> in al,dx
>> call hexbyte
>> + jmp ii_5
>> +ii_3:
>> + in ax,dx
>>> + call hexword
>> + jmp ii_5
>> +ii_4:
>> + in eax,dx
>> + push ax
>> + shr eax,16
>> + call hexword
>> + pop ax
>> + call hexword
>> +ii_5:
ii:
mov bl,0
mov ah,TOUPPER
and ah,al
cmp ah,'W'
je ii_w
cmp [machine],byte 3
jb ii_getw
cmp ah,'D'
jne ii_getw
inc bx
ii_w:
inc bx
call skipwhite
ii_getw:
call getword ;get word into DX
call chkeol ;expect end of line here
; bx=0/1/2 for byte/word/dword
dec bx
je ii_inw ;=1
jg ii_indw ;=2
in al,dx
call hexbyte
jmp ii_put
ii_inw:
in ax,dx
jmp ii_hexw
ii_indw:
in eax,dx
push ax
shr eax,16
call hexword
pop ax
ii_hexw:
call hexword
ii_put:
call putsline
iiret: ret
>> [...]
>> + cmp byte [fileext],0
>>> + jnz ll4
jne
>> [...]
>> +oo:
>> + mov bl,0
>> + mov ah,al
>> + and ah,TOUPPER
>> + cmp ah,'W'
Same, as for "ii".
J> ??? Please try to express yourself more clearly
See above. If you wish, I prepare diff-file.
>> PS: I jemm may completely replace ms-emm386 and, for example, compatible
>> with W9x?
J> it won't run with w9x, it does not completely replace ms-emm386.
Pity. :(
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
