On 8 Mar 2017 at 11:24, George Gwilt wrote: > > GWASS did not produce the same code as QMAC from Minerva source, and > > required various sourcecode changes, which now no longer allow to > > use QMAC. We did not hunt down all the subtle differences yet. I'm > > sure this could all be solved by more debugging and discussing the > > issues with you, and you would be more than willing to help. But > > this process would require a continuos period of time to concentrate > > on the topic, which neither Richard nor me found. > > I remember spending much time altering the source code of SMSQ/E so > that it could be assembled by GWASS. I think the reason for doing > this this was that GWASS allows the 68020+ instructions to be > used, which QPC2 allows, but QMAC doesn't. Otherwise, I agree that > it is silly to go to the trouble of altering the Minerva code just > so that you could use GWASS.
Yes, in today's view, it was a tragic decision to spend time altering Minerva for GWASS, not even with a full success. When Minerva was first released as free software, things were different. Back then, there were more active developers and still moderate hope for a new hardware with something beyond 68060. Therefore, using a 68020+ assembler, which is free and actively maintained, could have meant a significant advantage in the future. By now, SMSQ/E is also free software, Minerva offers no advantages regarding licensing anymore. Native hardware interest moved from targeting highspeed Motorola CPU to retrocomputing with FPGA. Which is using plain 68000 at the moment, taking away most interest in 68020+. Although I might change to 68020 later. And most developers are gone, more work for less people, less playground for several operating systems on one machine. All the best Peter _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
