 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer Compilers - LCC » lcc-win and windows 98 |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| CBFalconer |
 Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jacob navia wrote:
Quote:
I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.
Did you set the virtual machine to emulate a 486? Note that you
are providing a system, which includes an editor, IDE, and a
debugger. The debugger fails. As I recall the message is 'invalid
instruction' or something similar.
A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486. Note that
W98 runs as well as ever.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dX-Mozilla-Status: 0009tp://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Klein |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:51:10 +0100, jacob navia <jacob@nospam.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
Quote: Hi
I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.
Jacob,
I remember, even if you don't, one version of lcc-win32 some years ago
(must be more than five years) that would not run on Windows 9x. I
know, because I had downloaded it and installed it over an earlier
version.
I also remember that you fixed it quickly.
So there is a kernel of fact behind what Chuck says.
--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Flash Gordon |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jacob navia wrote, On 22/01/08 18:24:
<snip>
Quote: A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486. Note that
W98 runs as well as ever.
Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that is out
of date more than 10 years ago.
Chuck, Jacob, this discussion does not belong in comp.lang.c. Chuck, if
you want to continue this subscribe to comp.compilers.lcc and continue
it there. I've even set follow-ups for you!
Jacob, just include anywhere you state W98 that it is W98 on a Pentium
or newer rather than only saying W98, then you are covered.
--
Flash Gordon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kelsey Bjarnason |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[snips]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:24:35 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
Quote: A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486. Note that W98
runs as well as ever.
Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that is out
of date more than 10 years ago.
One might point out that despite your notion of 486's being "out of date"
they're still very much in use in many places, as they are perfectly
good, reliable, functional machines, as long as one doesn't expect them
to do something like run Vista. An older version of Windows, a
lightweight Linux distro, these work fine on such a machine.
So it seems to me what you're suggesting here is a totally gratuitous
requirement to upgrade the hardware, in order to run your software,
which, as far as you've been able to demonstrate, has absolutely no
actual need to use instructions not available on 486-class machines.
*Is* there an actual need for it to use instructions not available on the
486 class machines? Or is this simply a case of "It works here, so if it
doesn't work there, spend more money"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| CBFalconer |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jacob navia wrote:
Quote: CBFalconer wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.
Did you set the virtual machine to emulate a 486? Note that you
are providing a system, which includes an editor, IDE, and a
debugger. The debugger fails. As I recall the message is 'invalid
instruction' or something similar.
A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486. Note that
W98 runs as well as ever.
Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
is out of date more than 10 years ago.
That has nothing to do with it. You claim your system runs on
W98. W98 runs on a '486. Therefore it obviously must run your
system. WRONG.
And there are a fair number of '486s (and '386s) running in the
wide world.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| CBFalconer |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Flash Gordon wrote:
Quote: jacob navia wrote, On 22/01/08 18:24:
CBFalconer wrote:
snip
A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486. Note that
W98 runs as well as ever.
Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
is out of date more than 10 years ago.
Chuck, Jacob, this discussion does not belong in comp.lang.c. Chuck,
if you want to continue this subscribe to comp.compilers.lcc and
continue it there. I've even set follow-ups for you!
AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up. The
system used to work on the 486 - I know, because I was running it.
Then he made a revision, and it aborted the debugger on 'illegal
opcode'. I advised him, and he couldn't find the cause!!! Now,
years later, he continues the false claims and spouts garbage about
'obsolete'. The fact that he couldn't find the problem within
about a month of causing it is, to me, significant.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Randy Howard |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:22:31 -0600, CBFalconer wrote
(in article <47966CA7.BC834C54@yahoo.com>):
Quote: jacob navia wrote:
Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
is out of date more than 10 years ago.
That has nothing to do with it. You claim your system runs on
W98. W98 runs on a '486. Therefore it obviously must run your
system. WRONG.
And there are a fair number of '486s (and '386s) running in the
wide world.
I have a system here running HDOS on a Z80. It runs like a champ, and
it never crashes or reboots, "amber screens" on me.
The Xeon box running Vista? It's a pain in the ass, unstable,
unreliable, it sounds like a hovercraft, and I almost never turn it on.
I think I like the "out of date" platforms that actually work. Of
course, I also like modern platforms that actually work too, like OS X,
for example.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| santosh |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
CBFalconer wrote:
[removed cross post to c.l.c where this is not topical]
Quote: Flash Gordon wrote:
jacob navia wrote, On 22/01/08 18:24:
CBFalconer wrote:
snip
A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486. Note that
W98 runs as well as ever.
Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
is out of date more than 10 years ago.
Chuck, Jacob, this discussion does not belong in comp.lang.c. Chuck,
if you want to continue this subscribe to comp.compilers.lcc and
continue it there. I've even set follow-ups for you!
AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up. The
system used to work on the 486 - I know, because I was running it.
Then he made a revision, and it aborted the debugger on 'illegal
opcode'. I advised him, and he couldn't find the cause!!! Now,
years later, he continues the false claims and spouts garbage about
'obsolete'. The fact that he couldn't find the problem within
about a month of causing it is, to me, significant.
That's an unwarranted assumption. It could be that he knows what the
problem is, but it unwilling or unable to fix. Or it could be that
the "problem" exists in a third-party piece of code which he uses in
his debugger, whose license prevents modifications. Has he admitted
upfront that he cannot find the source of the problem on 486? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Flash Gordon |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
CBFalconer wrote, On 22/01/08 23:15:
<snip>
Quote: AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up. The
<snip>
I really don't give a monkeys. Whether and when any tool, whether
Jacob's or not, worked on a 486 and whether and when it broke is NOT
topical here. If you want to discuss win-lcc then do what you tell other
people to do and subscribe to the correct group, one you are fully aware
of, and discuss it there.
Remember, that if it is OK for YOU to discuss compiler specific issues
in comp.lang.c then it is OK for everyone. I say it is NOT OK for
anyone, including you.
Note that you are not discussing whether Jacob's compiler conforms to
the C standard, you are discussing the platforms it works on.
--
Flash Gordon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| CBFalconer |
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Flash Gordon wrote:
Quote: CBFalconer wrote, On 22/01/08 23:15:
snip
AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up. The
snip
I really don't give a monkeys. Whether and when any tool, whether
Jacob's or not, worked on a 486 and whether and when it broke is NOT
topical here. If you want to discuss win-lcc then do what you tell other
people to do and subscribe to the correct group, one you are fully aware
of, and discuss it there.
Remember, that if it is OK for YOU to discuss compiler specific issues
in comp.lang.c then it is OK for everyone. I say it is NOT OK for
anyone, including you.
Note that you are not discussing whether Jacob's compiler conforms to
the C standard, you are discussing the platforms it works on.
I'll get off it. However, Jacob asserts that a) his system meets
the standard and b) his system runs on W98. Both assertions seem
to be false.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| santosh |
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
CBFalconer wrote:
Quote: Flash Gordon wrote:
CBFalconer wrote, On 22/01/08 23:15:
snip
AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up. The
snip
I really don't give a monkeys. Whether and when any tool, whether
Jacob's or not, worked on a 486 and whether and when it broke is NOT
topical here. If you want to discuss win-lcc then do what you tell
other people to do and subscribe to the correct group, one you are
fully aware of, and discuss it there.
Remember, that if it is OK for YOU to discuss compiler specific
issues in comp.lang.c then it is OK for everyone. I say it is NOT OK
for anyone, including you.
Note that you are not discussing whether Jacob's compiler conforms to
the C standard, you are discussing the platforms it works on.
I'll get off it. However, Jacob asserts that a) his system meets
the standard
Which standard? IIRC he has admitted in the past that lcc-win32 does not
fully conform to C99. I believe he claims his compiler fully implements
C90, provided the appropriate switches are provided.
<snip> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:58 am
|
|