[Simh] A new version...

[Mark Abene]

This is why major software projects should have separate -user and -dev
mailing lists.  'Nuff said.


Terry Newton wrote:
> --- On Sat, 9/20/08, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>>> I see a pattern... complex stuff breaks under Windows.
>> What's complex about it? This seems all very
>> straightforward...
> 
> To a makefile expert... just because I'm not doesn't
> make me stupid. If it's straightforward then please
> test it, figure out why the errors occur under Windows
> and fix them, or make the decision that it'd be for
> *nix use only. It may be the same version of make
> but obviously there are environmental differences
> that cause the more complex contructs to fail, or
> there's a problem in the Windows-specific part.
> 
> Other than this I like the new makefile, it works
> fine and is much faster under Linux, Philipp did a
> good job but doesn't have Windows to test with, so
> others need to do that but how can that proceed if
> the one reporting bugs (like me) is dismissed.
> It's just plain rude to suggest that I don't need
> to do it - I'm a Linux user but I need to be able
> to generate a modified hp2100.exe binary for my
> public projects. But it doesn't matter why I need
> it to work, it just needs to work.
> 
> The present SimH archive compiles just fine on
> Windows 95 with only 64MB of ram, and my virtual XP
> with 192MB can compile 4 copies of simh *at once*.
> I know for a fact because I just did both of these
> tests to dispell the stupid notion that gobs of
> memory is required to compile SimH. Besides I
> retested in a real XP install and got exactly the
> same results, it has NOTHING to do with my dev
> system and to suggest that it does when the
> old system works just fine is an excuse.
> 
> The suggestion to use a cygwin shell is helpful,
> but unfortunately the cygwin compiler requires
> a runtime DLL which is much less desirable than
> a standalone exe. I'd much prefer that the way
> I've been doing it for years continue to work,
> at least for the Windows side. Under Linux the
> new makefile is a welcome improvement.
> 
> If the old makefile remains in the archive then
> fine, it that case it doesn't matter if the new
> one doesn't work under Windows and I can still
> do what I need to do.. if the problem in the new
> makefile can be fixed then that'd be great. But
> since my results don't seem to count and only
> result in flames, I'm passing it on to others
> (I'm tired:-) once again, out of the makefile
> business (just please don't break it...).
> 
> Terry
> 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> Simh mailing list
> Simh at trailing-edge.com
> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh