Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)
Hi Peter,
The ArcEm CVS has been static for quite some time.
Last change 2009-09-25?
Sorry yes. cvs log does things in a unhelpful order. I've been
using SVN too long.
Yes, I found it annoying when I went to look.
$ cvs log |
sed '/^date: /!d; s#/.. .*##; s/.* //; y#/#-#' |
sort -r | uniq -c |
pr -t3
2 2009-09 72 2006-02 2 2003-08
21 2008-11 35 2006-01 123 2003-05
2 2008-10 7 2005-12 35 2003-04
5 2008-05 1 2005-11 29 2002-08
15 2008-04 7 2005-10 50 2002-06
1 2007-04 2 2005-08 105 2002-05
7 2007-01 7 2005-07 21 2002-03
1 2006-10 15 2005-02 6 2002-02
16 2006-09 25 2005-01 1 2002-01
1 2006-05 26 2004-12 8 2001-11
38 2006-04 15 2004-11 133 2001-10
45 2006-03 9 2003-10
$
Do you have any specific plans for ArcEm here?
No. Just fixing whatever thing's got in the way the next time I dust it
off and go to use it. But I've not done much on it in some time, others
come along and run with it for a while, and I expect this'll keep
happening.
My biggest frustration with RPCEmu is still the issue of RONs.
The Spoon site links to where 3.60 and 3.71 can be downloaded. I find a
bigger problem with later ROM images is that some are taken after
they've been patched by the boot process. As I now understand it, the
list of SHA1 digests at http://inputplus.co.uk/ralph/#acornem has an
error. The correct digest for '4.02 (10 Aug 1999)' is
37acd8573da51493beb0fa6eef29623ce382822f; thanks to Eric Rucker for
sacrificing his RiscPC's CMOS to determine that. Any other corrections
welcome.
Debugging error reports from people who say they're running, e.g. 4.02,
may be hampered if they're starting with a patched ROM image or patch it
on booting.
I suspect the biggest future problem for RPCEmu is the one that bit
arcem; copy-and-paste expansion of code. For arcem it was to port to
more platforms. There's lots of identical, or worse almost identical,
code that should be platform independent, or worked on to be made
platform independent, that isn't. Now if I want to change a P.I. line
or two I have multiple copies to change having gone to the effort of
making sure the change is correct in all cases and bearing in mind some
of the changes I then can't compile and test. In the end, I don't
bother.
With RPCEmu.c this has happened with the interpreted versus dynarec ARM.
I'm spotting little improvements here and there and instead of making
them twice am trying to factor out common code where possible. Really,
the build process needs changing a bit so both variants are compiled but
only one linked in. At the moment I have to run './configure make
all check' in all four variants of --enable-{debug,dynarec} before
submitting a patch to Peter Howkins.
There are other Archimedes emulators that seem to have vanished for
example.
Yes, but they were never on SourceForge.
The mailing lists work fine and have a decent archive interface on
mail-archive.com. (sf.net's is awful.) Why break all those ties?
I don't see any benefits.
In fairness, the ArcEm mailing list isn't really used any more. The
argument could be make for combining its traffic with that of RPCEmu.
It is used. Someone new subscribes and asks for help and gets
responses. 2008-10 is the last example on the user list.
http://www.mail-archive.com/arcem-u...@lists.sourceforge.net/
http://www.mail-archive.com/arcem-de...@lists.sourceforge.net/
I think there's probably folks interested in arcem, perhaps because they
did work on it, that are still subscribed and want to be yet have no
interest in lots of current chat about the more actively developed
RPCEmu.
riscos.info's wiki already links to arcem.sf.net, perhaps a page for
it is all that's needed if you're concerned about it being
forgotten?
Perhaps.
I agree the arcem.sf.net web site needs to indicate there's no current
development but feel free to come along and play around. However,
Acorn users will be used to coming across web sites where the last news
entry is last century and yet still realise there may be useful stuff
there.
Cheers,
Ralph.
___
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)
Hi Chris, On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:26:31 -0700, Peter Naulls wrote: What I'll likely do then is close down the Sourceforge page. I'll import the ArcEm CVS into riscos.info SVN for historic value (if anyone really wants write access, just let me know a user name/password). It's possible I might make a final release, and bring the HTML pages/ manual to riscos.info and link them into the wiki. I'll see also if I can get a mailing list snapshot. I don't see any need to move it. Perhaps a copy of the source could be kept elsewhere in case sf.net closes the project down though. Yes. SourceForge keep backups themselves but only for restoring after hardware failure, so they do suggest projects keep their own backups of their data, e.g. SCM and mailing lists. http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Backup%20your%20data http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Using%20rsync%20for%20backups#CVS Perhaps that's something riscos.info could offer. Knowing there's a centralised, say weekly, backup of sf.net Acorn projects, e.g. arcem, and riscose, would be nice. Cheers, Ralph. ___ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)
Ian Jeffray wrote: Peter, Please don't top-post. I do not think it is acceptable for you to close down an opensource project and take it on to your private subversion server. riscos.info is not private, any more than any other well-known RISC OS site is. As a contributor, supporter and user of this project, I do not support this move. Are you saying you are contributing to this further? In particular, the ArcEm SF page links to: http://ian.jeffray.co.uk/gp2x/arcem001.zip Where is this now? Do you have plans to develop it further? Ultimately I can see you do whatever you wish to any project anyway. Do you really think such a petty comment is conducive to constructive conversation here? I'm happy to consider options here, but do you really think having ArcEm stagnate for all time on SF is the best bet? ___ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:30:26AM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote: I don't see the point? arcem.sf.net is the well-known place for it that has been referenced on the web, mailing lists, and Usenet over many years. Sourceforge is unlikely to disappear without notice anytime soon; it's not like a user's individual site mentioned above. The mailing lists work fine and have a decent archive interface on mail-archive.com. (sf.net's is awful.) Why break all those ties? I don't see any benefits. The only likely problem is if SF cancels the project for being dormant. They threatened to do that to a project I did, last update 2003, but the website is still there (I didn't use their CVS). It requires someone being alert enough to notice SF have sent out a 'reply or we'll cancel in 30 days' email, which might fall through the cracks. Maybe keep a 'mirror' site on riscos.info but tell people the official site is sf.net. Then if SF breaks the files are still safe. Theo ___ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)
Ian Jeffray wrote: Peter, Please don't top-post. Understand common business practice and avoid the pettyness. This is a serious development discussion. Proper inline posting means the points can actually be replied to. Unfortunately your response seems to be full of insults towards me, for whatever reason, so it's doubtful we'll make any progress here. riscos.info is not private, any more than any other well-known RISC OS site is. It is private. It is, afaik, your personal website. No, my personal website is http://www.chocky.org/. riscos.info is a public RISC OS resource, with more than one admin (and which I happen to pay for). All the content is (or should) publically accessible, and substantial recent updates were not made by me. My intent is to make the relevant MySQL databases public too (especially the wiki). Indeed, what I really don't want is for it to turn into another riscos.org or riscos.net. No doubt you can find criticism in this arrangement, but I only have so much time. As a contributor, supporter and user of this project, I do not support this move. Are you saying you are contributing to this further? In particular, the ArcEm SF page links to: http://ian.jeffray.co.uk/gp2x/arcem001.zip Where is this now? Do you have plans to develop it further? Complain to whoever maintains the web page, not myself. Sorry you can't answer the question - it points to your webspace, does it still exist or not, and should the port be considered part of the project? I've not had a GP2X for years. Does this mean I'm not using ArcEm or playing with other ports? No. I have no idea; that's why I asked. Your implication is that development is on going. I cannot guess the state of your GP2X involvement, especially if your website contains several projects for it. Yes. The point is that you are widely known to steal projects, [insults] Sorry, I have no idea what this is about; nor is this the appropriate forum for you to air whatever repressed anger you have towards me, over things that presumably happened a very long time ago. Perhaps you can save this for private email. [more insults] Did you have anything constructive here towards the future of this project? I really am disappointed here that you couldn't show a more mature attitude. The point of this is nothing to do with my ego, as you so feel need to throw out. Rather, it's a response to looking over the various stagnating BBC resources now out there (and if we want to go back further, we can even draw a very rough comparison with the Domesday project). ArcEm has become yet another project which has a news item which is most recently from many years ago, promising future updates which are unlikely to happen. Obviously this is a contentious issue for you, but I fail to see how your attitude helps in the slightest. If I was so obviously cast in the mold for which are you insisting for me, then I would have just moved it, no questions asked. ___ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
Re: [gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)
Ralph Corderoy wrote: Hi Peter, The ArcEm CVS has been static for quite some time. Last change 2009-09-25? Sorry yes. cvs log does things in a unhelpful order. I've been using SVN too long. Do you have any specific plans for ArcEm here? My biggest frustration with RPCEmu is still the issue of RONs. Obviously these have been endlessly distributed, but finding a precise owner who could then give permission for distribution may be impossible. The ownership of 3.1 is probably hopelessly murky. At least with RPC and RO5 there's some clarity, even if the IOMD version is still incomplete. The last post to the ArcEm mailing list is more recent, but still over a year ago. In any case, Arculator (http://b-em.bbcmicro.com/arculator/) is probably a superior emulator. However, what I don't want to happen is for it to be lost/forgotten just because there's no interest right now. I think we presently have a danger of that with some RISC OS material. Yes, with some RO stuff, particularly that on user's own individual sites where they drift away, change ISPs, etc. I think especially so with stuff related to Archimedes. There's something of a community of BBC users, so that's no in danger, and there's plenty of interest still in RiscPC onwards, but the gap in the middle doesn't seem entirely well catered to. Probably because there's not a great deal of current interest in the matter. There are other Archimedes emulators that seem to have vanished for example. The mailing lists work fine and have a decent archive interface on mail-archive.com. (sf.net's is awful.) Why break all those ties? I don't see any benefits. In fairness, the ArcEm mailing list isn't really used any more. The argument could be make for combining its traffic with that of RPCEmu. riscos.info's wiki already links to arcem.sf.net, perhaps a page for it is all that's needed if you're concerned about it being forgotten? Perhaps. Presently under consideration is a better definition of riscos.info exact scope with regards to machines it might cover. The focus has always been RiscPC+RO4 or later, but in light of my concerns about, that could change. ___ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
