[Freedos-kernel] Re: Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec
> > XYZ=TRUE in config.sys? > THIS WAS INTENDED NOT TO BE DOCUMENTED. THANKS FOR AMKIING IT PUBLIC. > no kind regards Tom, don't be childish. The automatic support for generic DOS version checks is experimental, so it is good not to explain it in the config.txt of the kernel download. Buuut: This is the kernel mailing list. Arkady is posting tons of patches here. Most people on the list will have looked into the source code from time to time. So they will have noticed this special feature anyway ;-). By the way, why not document it, but with a big fat "use at your own risk" close to it? As long as only "if ... equal" and not "if ... at least" is intercepted, I think it is even less problematic than one might think. Eric. --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 ___ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Re: Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec
> XYZ=TRUE in config.sys? THIS WAS INTENDED NOT TO BE DOCUMENTED. THANKS FOR AMKIING IT PUBLIC. no kind regards tom --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 ___ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
[Freedos-kernel] Re: Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec
Hi Bernd, I am not doing anything to the To: field... Whatever: > still not clear if CALLVER can be implemented into FreeCOM: > CALL /V:x.yz program /options Should not be hard to do, I think. But would be a bit "off topic". > CALLVER requires FreeCOM anyway, instead of patching MSDOS version presented. Not true. BUT if you do "callver 3.30 foo.exe" then callver will set the DOS version to 3.30 and then run the shell which in turn runs foo.exe ... Pro: This even works for .bat files Contra: MS shells cry out and start whining if you try to run them in DOS 3.30! So using MS shells limits your abilities to use CALLVER, but does not completely break them. You can always set COMSPEC to the MS shell which was meant for the targeted DOS version :-P. Eric --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 ___ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Re: Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec
tom ehlert schreef: Hello Eric, I think CALLVER is *not* an implementation of SETVER. But I also think that SETVER is *not* needed for FreeDOS 1.0 - it's needed 'this programs was only tested with DOS 5.0, please upgrade' style programs. because basically only MS programs are picky about the exact version number anyway. a) shouldn't be needed b) kernel programmers have a MUCH better solution for this problem. AnyDOS=TRUE in config.sys? btw, you're messing up the To: address a bit. Also happened to me, which resulted in private mails ending up on the list. "(To: Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)" still not clear if CALLVER can be implemented into FreeCOM: "CALL /V:X.YZ program.exe /options" CALLVER requires FreeCOM anyway, instead of patching MSDOS version presented. @echo off from now on, MS DOS version is 8.00 for all programs DOSVER 8.00 what about MS COMMAND.COM ? I can't load 2 different MS-COMMAND versions (from config.sys ofcourse) without also changing VERSION= and then that VERSION statement is global for all programs: VERSION=8.00 SHELL=C:\WIN_ME\COMMAND.COM C:\WIN_ME\ /P ;how to set back the version now to 7.10 for all other programs? does this imply SHELL= should act like ANYDOS=TRUE has been set? guess I'm a bit offtopic now :( Bernd --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 ___ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Re: Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec
Hello Eric, > I think CALLVER is *not* an implementation of SETVER. But I also think > that SETVER is *not* needed for FreeDOS 1.0 - it's needed 'this programs was only tested with DOS 5.0, please upgrade' style programs. > because basically only MS > programs are picky about the exact version number anyway. a) shouldn't be needed b) kernel programmers have a MUCH better solution for this problem. tom --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 ___ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
[Freedos-kernel] Re: Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec
Hi Tom! > > Okay for me to drop SETVER. > because you don't understand it's purpose (your implementation implies > that at least) I understand that SETVER can do much more than CALLVER. It was intended to use CALLVER as a kludge when VERSION= is not enough. So it is a nice surprise that the 1.0 TODO list calls CALLVER a good enough SETVER implementation. I think CALLVER is *not* an implementation of SETVER. But I also think that SETVER is *not* needed for FreeDOS 1.0 - because basically only MS programs are picky about the exact version number anyway. > > Still GPL is preferred, of course :-). > I'm pissed by GPL - for known reasons. As told, public domain or MIT or BSD license is fine for me, too. Several of my own tools are public domain. > > Good for the existing code base. > what 'existing' source base ? > there's no MASM sources around. I compiled "MASM" (or was that "TASM"?) NANSI with ArrowsoftASM. Maybe it was always intended for Arrowsoft compilation, but it certainly LOOKS like MASM/TASM syntax in some way. > and noone cares enough to port TASM->NASM, unless you DO IT YOURSELF. No thanks. Only if 1. I want to modify it and 2. Arrowsoft cannot process it and 3. it is worth the effort. There are enough people who OWN TASM out there, so they can modify stuff if porting to NASM/ArrowASM would not be worth the effort. > > And I really hope that it will be possible to compile the kernel with Turbo > > C in the near future. > this sentence disqualifies you as an even semi serous contributor to > the kernel list. please go away. I am not planning to follow Barts and Luchos example after your polite invitation, although it is a funny idea of having only you and Arkady left, discussing 10 byte optimizations which are embedded in 1000 line diffs. But I seem to remember that you wanted to migrate from DOS to Win yourself... will ANYBODY be left? I have NASM, ArrowASM, TC2, DJGPP, TP5.5 - and really enough work with THOSE FreeDOS programs which DO compile with those compilers. Luckily I am not the only FreeDOS programmer, so those programs which do NOT compile with my compilers can just as well be fixed by the other programmers. Eric. PS: I suggest that nobody leaves the list at all. But I will not be happy when the kernel will eventually stop to be compileable in Turbo C, although I know very well that Turbo C is not recommended - for optimization reasons. --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 ___ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
