Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/12 22:14, Malcolm Cadman wrote: As the great Bob (Marley) sang ... no WMAN no cry . :-) And we all know how Bob Marley likes his donuts? We Jammin. (You started it!) Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] SMSQmulator
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > Much is now working correctly. > Basic works. > PE & WMAN work. > It's now possible to have a bigger screen (I normally use 1024x512) but > screen access remains slow. Congrats. I remember it to be pretty satisfying once things start to work ;) I probably never forget the joy of the Minerva logo appearing on screen or the first blinking cursor :-) > I mention the bogomips prog, because I used that to test the speeds of > SMSQmulator. > > On the slowest machine around here (a 3 year old laptop), I get : > Smsqemulator 6.61 bogomips > but > QPC 50.06 bogomips - so SMSQmulator is about 8-10 times slower than QPC, > and it'll probably be even slower than that when heavy screen redrawing > is involved. That is somewhat slow, and I actually mean the QPC figure. Do you run QPC under Linux? In that case Wine might be slowing things down. I got a solid 183 bogomips here on my laptop that is slightly over a year old and is even just an i5. It shouldn't be three times as fast as your machine. > There are at least two known bugs. One stops QLiberated progs that read > DATAS from working - you get the famous red error window telling you > that the prog is out of DATA. This will be a tough one to figure out, > because trawling through QLiberated code is just awful! Been there, done that, didn't even get a T-shirt. Have fun :-P > There also seem to be some problems with C compiled progs, but I don't > have many of those, I'll have to check. Try setting sys_ptyp to $10. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
In message <4fa10f60.5070...@dunbar-it.co.uk>, Norman Dunbar writes Hi Norman, As the great Bob (Marley) sang ... no WMAN no cry . :-) On 02/05/12 11:35, George Gwilt wrote: The status area is $40 bytes long so that the loose item status block starts at wst + $40. Thanks George, that works perfectly. It appears that the offset into the definition's status area is exactly the same as for the working definition. This is good. Thanks again. Cheers, Norm. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] SMSQmulator
> -Original Message- > From: ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com [mailto:ql-users- > boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Lenerz > Sent: 01 May 2012 17:33 > To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com > Subject: [Ql-Users] SMSQmulator > > > There also seem to be some problems with C compiled progs, but I don't > have many of those, I'll have to check. I m guessing here, but I would think the most likely area to cause a problem is the bit of code in the start-up module that tries to detect the processor type and whether hardware floating point is supported as that relies on some exception's being handled correctly and also some variations in instruction behaviour between different processors in the 68K family. That code is in the proctype.x module from the LIBC library source. Having said that I am not sure that in most cases it would matter if the wrong answer was given as long as the program did not crash in that code. Dave Walker Tel: +44 (0)1707 652791 Mob: +44 (0)7999 218953 Web: http://www.itimpi.com Skype: itimpi ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Bug in WM_ENAME
On 2 May 2012, at 16:00, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > When I edit a string using this vector, and press ESC to terminate the edit, > I'm seeing zero in D0 instead of a positive number. D1.W is correctly set to > 27 for the ESC key. > > The docs state that: > > D0 negative is an error. > D0 zero means ENTER pressed to end the edit. > D0 positive means another key ended the edit. > > What I'm finding in tracing the code is the following: > > D0=0, D1=27, ESC pressed. > D0=0, D1=$0a, ENTER pressed. > D0=0, D1=$d0, UP pressed. > D0=0, D1=$d8, DOWN pressed. > > It appears that D0 is always zero on return. The code in ee_wman_rname_asm (which contains the code for WM.ENAME) sets D0 to 0 when a character is correctly read. If it is one of the terminators then D0 remains zero. this means that the code distinguishing between ENTER and the rest is just not there! George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] Bug in WM_ENAME
I'm seeing a possible bug in WMAN's WM.ENAME. When I edit a string using this vector, and press ESC to terminate the edit, I'm seeing zero in D0 instead of a positive number. D1.W is correctly set to 27 for the ESC key. The docs state that: D0 negative is an error. D0 zero means ENTER pressed to end the edit. D0 positive means another key ended the edit. What I'm finding in tracing the code is the following: D0=0, D1=27, ESC pressed. D0=0, D1=$0a, ENTER pressed. D0=0, D1=$d0, UP pressed. D0=0, D1=$d8, DOWN pressed. It appears that D0 is always zero on return. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/2012 10:55, Norman Dunbar wrote: On 02/05/12 09:55, Norman Dunbar wrote: It seems that SETW, not the latest version, defines a WORD for the window flag byte and the shadow depth byte. When I typed the above, what I was meaning to say was that SETW combines the two bytes (flag and shadow depth) into a single word, not that it generates a separate word for each of them. English isn't my first language! :-) Cheers, Norm. Oh come on now, I've heard many a scot put BBC English to shame All the best - Bill ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/12 11:35, George Gwilt wrote: The status area is $40 bytes long so that the loose item status block starts at wst + $40. Thanks George, that works perfectly. It appears that the offset into the definition's status area is exactly the same as for the working definition. This is good. Thanks again. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 2 May 2012, at 09:55, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > When setting up a window, how do I set a couple of the loose items to > unavailable? I know how to do it in the working definition after the window > has been set up, but I think I need to do it in the status area before I call > WM_SETUP? If so, what's the offset for the loose items into that area as > opposed to the working definition? Or are they the same? I can't find > anything in the QPTR docs. > If you use SETW to set the window you will find that the area for the status block and the loose item block immediately following are defined by wst ds.b The status area is $40 bytes long so that the loose item status block starts at wst + $40. Since the combined block is defined by ds,b there is no guarantee that all the values are zero. For that reason in my examples I clear the whole area thus setting all loose items to available. This clearing is done before the working definition is set up. To set a loose item to unavailable you just have to set the appropriate byte to $10. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/12 09:55, Norman Dunbar wrote: It seems that SETW, not the latest version, defines a WORD for the window flag byte and the shadow depth byte. When I typed the above, what I was meaning to say was that SETW combines the two bytes (flag and shadow depth) into a single word, not that it generates a separate word for each of them. English isn't my first language! :-) Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
I'm in the middle of my next (exciting) article for QL Today and I've come across something unusual in WMAN under QPC. But first a "simple" question. When setting up a window, how do I set a couple of the loose items to unavailable? I know how to do it in the working definition after the window has been set up, but I think I need to do it in the status area before I call WM_SETUP? If so, what's the offset for the loose items into that area as opposed to the working definition? Or are they the same? I can't find anything in the QPTR docs. Ok, the weirdness. I have QPC running with a resolution of 1024 by 768. I have a window defined as being 336 by 224 and a shadow depth of 2. The window was set up using George's SETW utility, as usual. When I draw the window on screen it appears, without a shadow. Strange. What is even stranger is, I cannot move the window outside of the normal 512 by 256 window area. Even stranger, I notice that while the window is on screen, a shadow - probably the missing one - is displayed over on the far right of the screen outside the 512 by 256 window area. There's nothing unusual in this window - 7 loose items, 6 information windows, 1 application window (no menu yet) and that's about it. Every other program I have moves happily around and keeps the shadow with it. This one is puzzling! When I trace the program execution, the call to iop_flim correctly returns the 1024 by 768 at 0 by 0 settings for the maximum window limits. Any clues? By the way, QPC is running under Linux - as it always does. But the problem also shows up under QPC on Windows XP as well. I'm trawling through the window definition even as I type, but so far, it all looks fine to me: STOP PRESS SOLVED! Got the b*gger! It seems that SETW, not the latest version, defines a WORD for the window flag byte and the shadow depth byte. Because I was using an older version (sorry George, I'll get it updated soon!) it was generating thw wrong value for these two bytes. In my stupidity, I set the word to $82 (aka 130) whihc set the shadow depth to 130 instead of 2. The word should have been $8002 (aka 32270). So, setting a "bonkers" shadow depth was the cause of my problem, the shadow was hitting the window limits as I moved the window around while the window itself appeared to be ok. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
