Re: [Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[Jason Hood]

On 6/12/2016 7:23, Robert Riebisch wrote:
> I have used http://www.bttr-software.de/freesoft/menu.htm#linkln for
> many years.

Yeah, that sounds like the one I was thinking of (and the Free
Software list is probably where I came across it).  I don't think
I ever used it (stopped using DOS around that time), just curious
to how it worked.

-- 
Jason.

--
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today.http://sdm.link/xeonphi
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

Re: [Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[Jason Hood]

On 30/11/2016 8:54, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> Here's the thing: I, as a user, store lots of useful software on my PC. 
> Many of these programs are so useful that I like to have them available 
> immediately from anywhere: ZIP, UNZIP, UNRAR, UPX, NASM, TCC, OPTIPNG, 
> QV, MPXPLAY, UHEX, GOPHERUS, LAME... the list goes on and on.
> 
> To achieve this, I know of four ways. Each comes with some limitations.

Simtel had two programs that create links: exelink2.zip and linkln10.zip.
I though I had the former, but apparently no longer; iirc it used a text
file to store the links and a TSR to hook the EXEC call.

-- 
Jason.

--
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

Re: [Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[Louis Santillan]

Method 1 is the traditional DOS way of installing software.

Maybe some advanced usage of JOIN & SUBST is what you are looking for?

Another alternative (though slightly messy) would be to combine
Methods 1 & 4.  By that, I mean, leave the *.bats in C:\DOS.  The
*.bats will temporarily create a new Environment & PATH extended as
the application expects and then remove the adjustment.  This will
slow down many types of computing, as HPA mentioned, SW builds come to
mind

-L.

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mateusz Viste  wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:02:59 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> But why the batch file in the first place?  It truly makes no sense: it
>> pollutes the namespace equally, and can just cause problems (e.g. in the
>> case of more than 9 arguments.)  Not to mention slowing down a make.
>
> Here's the thing: I, as a user, store lots of useful software on my PC.
> Many of these programs are so useful that I like to have them available
> immediately from anywhere: ZIP, UNZIP, UNRAR, UPX, NASM, TCC, OPTIPNG,
> QV, MPXPLAY, UHEX, GOPHERUS, LAME... the list goes on and on.
>
> To achieve this, I know of four ways. Each comes with some limitations.
>
> Method 1: Store every program in its own directory, and add each
> directory to the %PATH%. Problem: obviously the environment will get very
> bloated, very fast. Besides, some programs come with add-on tools that I
> do not want to be available from within my path.
>
> Method 2: Trim out the programs from everything besides a single exe, and
> put them all in a single directory declared in my %PATH%. But this poses
> two problems that I cannot live with: first, not every program can be
> trimmed out to a single executable file (data files, config files, etc),
> and second - almost all programs come with their respective README files
> and other valuable documentation that I really want to keep within the
> vicinity of the executable (ie. in the same directory).
>
> Method 3: Store each tool in its own directory, and place a COPY of its
> executable inside a directory in the %PATH%. Well, this is just messy -
> upgrading the program needs to think about replacing the executable each
> time in both places, and it's simply a waste of disk space.
>
> Method 4: Keep each program in its own directory with all its original
> files, and only store *.bat "links" in a single directory somewhere in
> the PATH. This mitigates the troubles of methods 1 and 2, at the cost,
> unfortunately, of *.bat's own limitations (max 9 args and '=' processing
> weirdness).
>
> The method 4 is what I started doing back in the nineties, and as of
> today I still didn't find a better (or let's say, less worse) way. That's
> a lifetime project it would seem.
>
> The method 4 is also something that I implemented last year inside FDNPKG
> (the FreeDOS package manager), but since I discovered recently how oddly
> the '=' character is processed in %1-like arguments (there's a separate
> thread about that on freedos-devel), I will have to figure out some
> improved method... first thought pointed to computing some COM loader
> relying on INT21,4Bh but that's far less trivial than the current batch
> method, and hobby time is scarce.
>
> Mateusz
>
>
> --
> ___
> Freedos-kernel mailing list
> Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

--
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

Re: [Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[Mateusz Viste]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:02:59 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> But why the batch file in the first place?  It truly makes no sense: it
> pollutes the namespace equally, and can just cause problems (e.g. in the
> case of more than 9 arguments.)  Not to mention slowing down a make.

Here's the thing: I, as a user, store lots of useful software on my PC. 
Many of these programs are so useful that I like to have them available 
immediately from anywhere: ZIP, UNZIP, UNRAR, UPX, NASM, TCC, OPTIPNG, 
QV, MPXPLAY, UHEX, GOPHERUS, LAME... the list goes on and on.

To achieve this, I know of four ways. Each comes with some limitations.

Method 1: Store every program in its own directory, and add each 
directory to the %PATH%. Problem: obviously the environment will get very 
bloated, very fast. Besides, some programs come with add-on tools that I 
do not want to be available from within my path.

Method 2: Trim out the programs from everything besides a single exe, and 
put them all in a single directory declared in my %PATH%. But this poses 
two problems that I cannot live with: first, not every program can be 
trimmed out to a single executable file (data files, config files, etc), 
and second - almost all programs come with their respective README files 
and other valuable documentation that I really want to keep within the 
vicinity of the executable (ie. in the same directory).

Method 3: Store each tool in its own directory, and place a COPY of its 
executable inside a directory in the %PATH%. Well, this is just messy - 
upgrading the program needs to think about replacing the executable each 
time in both places, and it's simply a waste of disk space.

Method 4: Keep each program in its own directory with all its original 
files, and only store *.bat "links" in a single directory somewhere in 
the PATH. This mitigates the troubles of methods 1 and 2, at the cost, 
unfortunately, of *.bat's own limitations (max 9 args and '=' processing 
weirdness).

The method 4 is what I started doing back in the nineties, and as of 
today I still didn't find a better (or let's say, less worse) way. That's 
a lifetime project it would seem.

The method 4 is also something that I implemented last year inside FDNPKG 
(the FreeDOS package manager), but since I discovered recently how oddly 
the '=' character is processed in %1-like arguments (there's a separate 
thread about that on freedos-devel), I will have to figure out some 
improved method... first thought pointed to computing some COM loader 
relying on INT21,4Bh but that's far less trivial than the current batch 
method, and hobby time is scarce.

Mateusz


--
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

Re: [Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/29/16 12:50, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> Because, apparently the nasm being called isn't in c:\devel\nasm, so 
> change the path in the nasm.bat file to point to the proper place, and 
> the problem should be solved.  Either solution will work.
> 

But why the batch file in the first place?  It truly makes no sense: it
pollutes the namespace equally, and can just cause problems (e.g. in the
case of more than 9 arguments.)  Not to mention slowing down a make.

-hpa



--
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

Re: [Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[Travis Siegel]

On 11/29/2016 3:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/24/16 00:59, Mateusz Viste wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Your problem is related to the fact that your "nasm" command doesn't call
>> nasm.exe directly. Instead, it calls a batch file named nasm.bat which
>> has been placed in your %PATH% by the FDNPKG installer. This nasm.bat
>> file is pretty straight-forward:
>>
>>@ECHO OFF
>>C:\DEVEL\NASM\NASM.EXE %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
>>
>> While in theory such trick should work (and it does work with most other
>> utilities out there), somehow it doesn't play out right with nasm. Simply
>> edit your CONFIG.BAT to set its XNASM variable to the full path to your
>> copy of nasm.exe, and you're done. Enjoy!
>>
> And pray tell, why?
>
>   -hpa
>
>
>
Because, apparently the nasm being called isn't in c:\devel\nasm, so 
change the path in the nasm.bat file to point to the proper place, and 
the problem should be solved.  Either solution will work.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

Re: [Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/24/16 00:59, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Your problem is related to the fact that your "nasm" command doesn't call 
> nasm.exe directly. Instead, it calls a batch file named nasm.bat which 
> has been placed in your %PATH% by the FDNPKG installer. This nasm.bat 
> file is pretty straight-forward:
> 
>   @ECHO OFF
>   C:\DEVEL\NASM\NASM.EXE %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
> 
> While in theory such trick should work (and it does work with most other 
> utilities out there), somehow it doesn't play out right with nasm. Simply 
> edit your CONFIG.BAT to set its XNASM variable to the full path to your 
> copy of nasm.exe, and you're done. Enjoy!
> 

And pray tell, why?

-hpa



--
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

[Freedos-kernel] ke2042: nasm fails to assemble files during build time

[Mateusz Viste]

Hello group,

I am trying to compile the FreeDOS kernel from svn's tag ke2042, but it 
appears that build.bat fails to assemble several files. For instance:

  nasm -DTC2 -DWITHFAT32 -i../hdr/ -DXCPU=86 -f obj floppy.asm
  nasm: error: more than one input file specified
  nasm: error: more than one input file specified

Not sure why this happens, the command looks sane. If I redo the nasm 
command by hand, I get the same message. Trying to compile on DOSEMU, 
using nasm v2.12.02.

Have I missed something obvious? Any clue?

regards,
Mateusz


--
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel