Re: [ql-users] The Next Step...
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 at 22:10:24, Dilwyn Jones wrote: (ref: <00bc01c1e97c$c8a29800$bf065cc3@default>) >>>Unfortunately neither Turbo itself not its output is very "clean": >It is >>>neither ROMable not Thingable ;( >>Given Simon's Assembly background I would think that the output from >TURBO >>would be fairly clean (but I've never looked at it and I really don't >know >Turbo, as one of its "speed-up" tricks, generates self-modifying code, >so a Turbo compiled program could never run from ROM in its DP form at >least. Example: machine code loops were speeded up with a series of >consecutive move.l ... type instructions in succession and the loop >generated a jmp or jsr to the appropriate number of move.l >instructions, so it had to modify the parameter for the jump >instruction to tell itself how far into the loop to jump to generate >the correct number of move.l instructions! > >In brief, the code modified itself to some extent as it ran, so it >couldn't modify itself while executing from a ROM, and if it were >HOT_RES'ed for example, chaos would ensue if two or more copies of the >program running from the same place tried to modify the same code! > >That's what's meant by by non-rommable and non-thingable code. It also uses RESPR space to store transient data. We had a midnight session with Freddy in Eindhoven sorting out issues like this. Users used to change RESPR to LRESPR. This failed often, 'cos the procedure space was _larger_ than the code size, ie RESPR area reserved was larger than the code size. Awful. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] The Next Step...
>>Unfortunately neither Turbo itself not its output is very "clean": It is >>neither ROMable not Thingable ;( >Given Simon's Assembly background I would think that the output from TURBO >would be fairly clean (but I've never looked at it and I really don't know Turbo, as one of its "speed-up" tricks, generates self-modifying code, so a Turbo compiled program could never run from ROM in its DP form at least. Example: machine code loops were speeded up with a series of consecutive move.l ... type instructions in succession and the loop generated a jmp or jsr to the appropriate number of move.l instructions, so it had to modify the parameter for the jump instruction to tell itself how far into the loop to jump to generate the correct number of move.l instructions! In brief, the code modified itself to some extent as it ran, so it couldn't modify itself while executing from a ROM, and if it were HOT_RES'ed for example, chaos would ensue if two or more copies of the program running from the same place tried to modify the same code! That's what's meant by by non-rommable and non-thingable code. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] 68040 to 68060 upgrade
On 21/04/02 at 12:53 Phoebus Dokos wrote: >I found a little adaptor that enables the upgrade from a 68040 to an >68060... Which reminds me: Stuart Honeyball (= Mr. Miracle himself) planned to do such an adaptor for the QXL but ultimately decided against it because he could not find a source of 68060's at a reasonable price at the time. The working name for it was the O-Daptor. I used to tell him if it was an O'Daptor, he could say it was Irish :-) Nasta
Re: [ql-users] 68040 to 68060 upgrade
On 21/04/02 at 12:53 Phoebus Dokos wrote: >I found a little adaptor that enables the upgrade from a 68040 to an >68060... > >Does anyone think that this could work on a QXL or Q40??? ^^ He he, I love your choice of words :-) Givee ambiguity, or give me something else!!! Yes, it _could_ work, assuming the adapter is set correctly, it has a power supply regulator (68040 works on 5V, 68060 on 3.3), and, last but not least, the correct initialization is performed for the CPU and the necessary changes to software have been implemented... Nasta
[ql-users] 68040 to 68060 upgrade
I found a little adaptor that enables the upgrade from a 68040 to an 68060... Does anyone think that this could work on a QXL or Q40??? Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] c68 question
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:08:33AM +0100, Dave Walker wrote: > There is no standard way to get a file re-directed to be treated as a > command line in c68. > > You can do file level re-direction and then process the input as though it > comes from "stdin". The standard c68 start-up code will handle attaching > the input as stdin, but the processing of this input so that it can be an > alternative to the command line has to be implemented within the program > itself and is not a standard feature of the c68 start-up code. > > The main reason that this is not done is simply because there is no agreed > syntax that specifies the parameters for a command line are coming from a > file. It would be relatively trivial to enhance the C68 start-up code to > implement such a feature given an agreement on the syntax for recognising > the command line re-direction to a file for parameters. The idea sounds > like a good one, so if anyone has suggestions on a proposed syntax I am > happy to consider them for inclusion into the standard c68 build. Is there > any standard for this in the Posix/Unix world as I have not come across such > a feature? that sounds much like a 'xargs' job, xargs is part of recent findutils so maybe it has already been ported? In any case it should be rather trivial to port - except that we may get problems with very big commandlines than. Richard
Re: [ql-users] The Next Step...
Timothy Swenson writes: > >Unfortunately neither Turbo itself not its output is very "clean": It is > >neither ROMable not Thingable ;( > > > >Per > > Given Simon's Assembly background I would think that the output from TURBO > would be fairly clean (but I've never looked at it and I really don't know Yes, one would have thought so.. Per
Re: [ql-users] c68 question
Dave Walker writes: > There is no standard way to get a file re-directed to be treated as a > command line in c68. Thank you. That explains why I cant do what I was trying to do. Ill have to find another way. <> > The main reason that this is not done is simply because there is no agreed > syntax that specifies the parameters for a command line are coming from a > file. It would be relatively trivial to enhance the C68 start-up code to > implement such a feature given an agreement on the syntax for recognising > the command line re-direction to a file for parameters. The idea sounds > like a good one, so if anyone has suggestions on a proposed syntax I am > happy to consider them for inclusion into the standard c68 build. Is there > any standard for this in the Posix/Unix world as I have not come across such > a feature? What about other OS? EX cprog, #stdin, #stdout; 'stdout 2>stderr 3
Re: [ql-users] c68 question
There is no standard way to get a file re-directed to be treated as a command line in c68. You can do file level re-direction and then process the input as though it comes from "stdin". The standard c68 start-up code will handle attaching the input as stdin, but the processing of this input so that it can be an alternative to the command line has to be implemented within the program itself and is not a standard feature of the c68 start-up code. The main reason that this is not done is simply because there is no agreed syntax that specifies the parameters for a command line are coming from a file. It would be relatively trivial to enhance the C68 start-up code to implement such a feature given an agreement on the syntax for recognising the command line re-direction to a file for parameters. The idea sounds like a good one, so if anyone has suggestions on a proposed syntax I am happy to consider them for inclusion into the standard c68 build. Is there any standard for this in the Posix/Unix world as I have not come across such a feature? What about other OS? Dave - Original Message - From: "P Witte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ql users mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:28 PM Subject: [ql-users] c68 question > Is there a way to get a c68 program to accept a commandline > (or part of a command line) from a file/pipe. > > I want to achieve something like: > > EX cprog ; "-options parameters > rather than > > EX cprog ; "-options parameters file1 file2 .. fileN" > > Or is all this entirely up to cprog? > > Per > > > > > >
