Hi everybody,
we don't need to get so excited. A new guy that apparently was not used
to this kind of list posted a few messages. I believe now that he
understands better and can be forgiven. Don't we get so excited amongst
ourselves...
Michael Devore escreveu:
> At 02:39 PM 7/20/2006 +0800, "
Hi!
20-Июл-2006 12:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Strange. I was think, that "bugzilla", "private email" or "post in
>> group" is only ways to transfer reports to author and have nothing with
>> "distance between me and program".
J> Bugzilla i
> btw: it looks to me as if japeth wrote a tiny program to produce the
> bug; it's always helpful for maintainers if they get this
> program/source/description how to reproduce,
> so the time to reproduce the bug (and thereby time
> spend on the problem) is significant reduced, and often motivation
>>Seems FD-HIMEM can't do a MERGE with others free blocks, even the
>>MS-HIMEM did the job well. My friend told me how but sorry I'm not
>>allow to tell details,
Wow. 'I'm not allowed to tell the details...' seems to suggest that's
it's some ingenious (patent pending) technology art.
In fact it's m
Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 20-Июл-2006 12:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
> freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>
>
>>> Do you think, that "distance" allows/mean more rude behavior?! :) :(
>>>
> J> No, it means using Bugzilla for bug reports - if anything at all. :)
At 05:50 PM 7/20/2006 +0800, Johnson Lam wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:52:02 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >>XMS free blocks fragmentation ... they should not exist (now is 21
> >>century!). I hope he found the time to fix it.
> >
> >Fragmentation always exists, and if you were a programmer you would know
> Strange. I was think, that "bugzilla", "private email" or "post in
> group" is only ways to transfer reports to author and have nothing with
> "distance between me and program".
Bugzilla is more complicated and you have to login - several - times. That
makes you think twice before you inde
Hi!
20-Июл-2006 12:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Do you think, that "distance" allows/mean more rude behavior?! :) :(
J> No, it means using Bugzilla for bug reports - if anything at all. :)
Strange. I was think, that "bugzilla", "privat
> Do you think, that "distance" allows/mean more rude behavior?! :) :(
No, it means using Bugzilla for bug reports - if anything at all. :)
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Te
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:52:02 -0500, you wrote:
>>XMS free blocks fragmentation ... they should not exist (now is 21
>>century!). I hope he found the time to fix it.
>
>Fragmentation always exists, and if you were a programmer you would know
Fragmentation always exist for XMS manager, not user.
Hi!
20-Июл-2006 14:39 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnson Lam) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
JL> XMS free blocks fragmentation ... they should not exist (now is 21
JL> century!).
Dynamic memory fragmentation was and will exist in any century. This is
unavoidable behavior. Issue is on
Hi!
20-Июл-2006 08:15 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Be polite never late!
J> You're right. But to be safe I will maintain a tiny security distance between
J> me and everything FD-related in the future.
Do you think, that "distance" allows/
At 02:39 PM 7/20/2006 +0800, "someone" wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:32:11 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >> I never seen similar reports before, so Michael,
> >> probably, unaware about this behavior and thus have no chance to fix
> it. :)
> >Yes, let's assume this. :)
>
>XMS free blocks fragmentation ..
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:32:11 +0200, you wrote:
>> I never seen similar reports before, so Michael,
>> probably, unaware about this behavior and thus have no chance to fix it. :)
>Yes, let's assume this. :)
XMS free blocks fragmentation ... they should not exist (now is 21
century!). I hope he fou
> Be polite never late!
You're right. But to be safe I will maintain a tiny security distance between
me and everything FD-related in the future.
> PS: Last 5 days news.openwatcom.org misbehaves for me. Is it my troubles or
> it broken itself?
I've experienced the same troubles. It seems
Arkady: I think that news.openwatcom.org is broken at the moment
--
Fall is my favorite season in Los Angeles, watching the birds change
color and fall from the trees.
David Letterman (1947 - )
See ya
-
Take Surveys. Ear
Hi!
19-Июл-2006 06:32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Total "all" or total "free"? If first, then this is bug.
J> RBIL is a bit unclear, but given that the FD-Himem competitors are correct it
J> is meant "total free".
If you mean Table 02758
> Total "all" or total "free"? If first, then this is bug.
RBIL is a bit unclear, but given that the FD-Himem competitors are correct it
is meant "total free".
> Be more polite! :)
It's too late. Mr. Devore already expressed his "bewilderment" concerning my
remark.
> I never seen si
At 11:48 PM 7/18/2006 +0200, Japheth wrote:
> > Thank you for a most reasoned and pleasant remark. It is a particularly
> > enlightened remark to make in view of recent mail-list history. In any
> > case, you have certainly modified my overall view of your attitude and
> > willingness to act as
Hi!
18-Июл-2006 22:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
J> 1. the xms state after booting FD without EMM386:
J> XMS3+ total extended memory (kB): 785088
J> 2. the xms state after allocation of 1024 kB:
J> XMS3+ largest free block (kB): 784064
J> XMS3+ total
Hi!
18-Июл-2006 10:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Hall) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
JH> I don't have my copy of Kernighan & Ritchie's "C Programming Language
JH> (ed. 2)" with me to show you, but here is an excerpt from ISO/IEC
JH> 9899:TC2 WG14/N1124 Committee Draft - May 6, 2005 (6
> Thank you for a most reasoned and pleasant remark. It is a particularly
> enlightened remark to make in view of recent mail-list history. In any
> case, you have certainly modified my overall view of your attitude and
> willingness to act as a responsible party in reporting errors and
> com
At 10:50 PM 7/18/2006 +0200, Japheth wrote:
>Here is another "CORRECT, but not terribly GOOD" behaviour of FD-Himem
>(newest
>version!):
>After these tests I understand now the reasons which brought QHIMEM into
>existance.
Thank you for a most reasoned and pleasant remark. It is a particula
At 09:24 PM 7/18/2006 +0200, Japheth wrote:
>As already mentioned, the block merges are not done on allocation, at least
>not in all cases, since my simple try to alloc a block which exceeded the
>reported "largest size" failed. Else I would probably have hesitated to call
>it a bug.
Tonight's c
Here is another "CORRECT, but not terribly GOOD" behaviour of FD-Himem (newest
version!):
1. the xms state after booting FD without EMM386:
XMS3+ largest free block (kB): 785088
XMS3+ highest address: 2FFF
> the largest (allocatable) block. In its defense, I believe that
> contiguous XMS blocks will be merged on allocation if there is insufficient
> memory contained in a single block, although I might be remembering that
> wrong. In other words, if my memory is correct, block merges are done on
>
At 06:20 PM 7/18/2006 +0200, Japheth wrote:
>There is a bug left in the FD-Himem.exe memory manager.
Nope. But see further...
>When a program that had allocated several XMS blocks doesn't release these
>blocks in the order FD-Himem likes it, it will report a too small "largest
>free block
There is a bug left in the FD-Himem.exe memory manager.
When a program that had allocated several XMS blocks doesn't release these
blocks in the order FD-Himem likes it, it will report a too small "largest
free block". Luckily the memory is not "permanently" lost, FD-Himem is able to
regenerat
>>> And there remains issue with "nested" comments.
>>>
> MD> No issue; no nesting. Ergo, I'm not changing it. In reply, rather than
> MD> quoting boring old pre-ISO C compiler options, please instead trace
> support
> MD> back to the far more enriching Magna Carta. King John of England
Hi!
17-Июл-2006 12:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>And there remains issue with "nested" comments.
MD> No issue; no nesting. Ergo, I'm not changing it. In reply, rather than
MD> quoting boring old pre-ISO C compiler options, please instead t
Hi!
17-Июл-2006 19:35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
J> There is a small "issue" which I have to "cure" on every new release:
J> Turbo C Version 2.01 Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Borland International
J> emm386c.c:
J> Warning emm386c.c 801: 'temphandle' de
At 08:07 PM 7/17/2006 +0200, Japheth wrote:
>After fixing the first error...
Nomenclature correction:
>fixing
^^^
modifying source to remove
>error
^^^
warning
So that:
>After fixing the first error...
properly becomes:
After modifying the source to remove the first warning...
In o
After fixing the first error, I'm getting:
---
C:\FREEDOS\EMM386\SOURCE\EMM386>d:\alt\tc201\make
MAKE Version 2.0 Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Borland International
Available memory 563902 bytes
d:\alt\tc201\tcc -G- -w -r -
> No issue; no nesting. Ergo, I'm not changing it. In reply, rather than
> quoting boring old pre-ISO C compiler options, please instead trace support
> back to the far more enriching Magna Carta. King John of England's
> viewpoint on how an unpaired '/*' inside of a comment block makes the
At 04:43 PM 7/17/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>And there remains issue with "nested" comments.
No issue; no nesting. Ergo, I'm not changing it. In reply, rather than
quoting boring old pre-ISO C compiler options, please instead trace support
back to the far more enriching Magna Carta.
Салям!
15-Июл-2006 01:19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
> MD> Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads/emm386/ are the files
> MD> emmx211.zip, EMM386 version 2.11 memory manager, mostly executable files;
> MD> and emms211.zip, source co
At 12:06 PM 7/15/2006 -0500, Jim Hall wrote:
>I also mirrored this release on ibiblio, and updated the LSM on the web
>site. :-)
Can you update the freedos.org website to point to 2.11? I dunno if it
needs an UPDATE message below original text. Maybe "minor VDS patch", or
whatever.
Unrelated
I also mirrored this release on ibiblio, and updated the LSM on the web
site. :-)
Blair Campbell wrote:
> Just in time :-) (15 min left here)
>
> On 7/14/06, Michael Devore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads/emm386/ are the files
>> emmx211.zip
Just in time :-) (15 min left here)
On 7/14/06, Michael Devore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads/emm386/ are the files
> emmx211.zip, EMM386 version 2.11 memory manager, mostly executable files;
> and emms211.zip, source code files. 2.11 is a minor up
Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads/emm386/ are the files
emmx211.zip, EMM386 version 2.11 memory manager, mostly executable files;
and emms211.zip, source code files. 2.11 is a minor update from 2.10 --
minor, of course, unless you need it.
EMM386 2.11 fixes a problem with a few
40 matches
Mail list logo
