Hi

I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.

Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.


-- 
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
> I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
> and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
> contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
> 
> Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
> use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
> notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.
> 
> 
P.S. I retrieved an old source tree from my archives and got wedit
running (inclusive debugger) under windows 98.



-- 
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:
> 
> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
> I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
> and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
> contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
> 
> Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
> use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
> notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.

Did you set the virtual machine to emulate a 486?  Note that you
are providing a system, which includes an editor, IDE, and a
debugger.  The debugger fails.  As I recall the message is 'invalid
instruction' or something similar.

A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486.  Note that
W98 runs as well as ever.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dX-Mozilla-Status: 0009tp://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:51:10 +0100, jacob navia <jacob@nospam.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

> Hi
> 
> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
> I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
> and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
> contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
> 
> Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
> use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
> notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.

Jacob,

I remember, even if you don't, one version of lcc-win32 some years ago
(must be more than five years) that would not run on Windows 9x.  I
know, because I had downloaded it and installed it over an earlier
version.

I also remember that you fixed it quickly.

So there is a kernel of fact behind what Chuck says.

-- 
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

CBFalconer wrote:
> jacob navia wrote:
>> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
>> I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
>> and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
>> contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
>>
>> Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
>> use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
>> notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.
> 
> Did you set the virtual machine to emulate a 486?  Note that you
> are providing a system, which includes an editor, IDE, and a
> debugger.  The debugger fails.  As I recall the message is 'invalid
> instruction' or something similar.
> 
> A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486.  Note that
> W98 runs as well as ever.
> 

Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that is out
of date more than 10 years ago.




-- 
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote, On 22/01/08 18:24:
> CBFalconer wrote:

<snip>

>> A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486.  Note that
>> W98 runs as well as ever.
> 
> Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that is out
> of date more than 10 years ago.

Chuck, Jacob, this discussion does not belong in comp.lang.c. Chuck, if 
you want to continue this subscribe to comp.compilers.lcc and continue 
it there. I've even set follow-ups for you!

Jacob, just include anywhere you state W98 that it is W98 on a Pentium 
or newer rather than only saying W98, then you are covered.
-- 
Flash Gordon

[snips]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:24:35 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

>> A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486.  Note that W98
>> runs as well as ever.
>> 
>> 
> Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that is out
> of date more than 10 years ago.

One might point out that despite your notion of 486's being "out of date" 
they're still very much in use in many places, as they are perfectly 
good, reliable, functional machines, as long as one doesn't expect them 
to do something like run Vista.  An older version of Windows, a 
lightweight Linux distro, these work fine on such a machine.

So it seems to me what you're suggesting here is a totally gratuitous 
requirement to upgrade the hardware, in order to run your software, 
which, as far as you've been able to demonstrate, has absolutely no 
actual need to use instructions not available on 486-class machines.

*Is* there an actual need for it to use instructions not available on the 
486 class machines?  Or is this simply a case of "It works here, so if it 
doesn't work there, spend more money"?

jacob navia wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine, and
>>> I have been able to verify that the compiler runs perfectly
>>> and compiles programs for widnows 98 without any problems,
>>> contrary to what Mr CBFalconer says since several years.
>>>
>>> Wedit (the IDE) will not run in windows 98. You should
>>> use another editor (I would recommend vi.exe or
>>> notepad) and everything will go on very smoothly.
>>
>> Did you set the virtual machine to emulate a 486?  Note that you
>> are providing a system, which includes an editor, IDE, and a
>> debugger.  The debugger fails.  As I recall the message is 'invalid
>> instruction' or something similar.
>>
>> A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486.  Note that
>> W98 runs as well as ever.
> 
> Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
> is out of date more than 10 years ago.

That has nothing to do with it.  You claim your system runs on
W98.  W98 runs on a '486.  Therefore it obviously must run your
system.  WRONG.

And there are a fair number of '486s (and '386s) running in the
wide world.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Flash Gordon wrote:
> jacob navia wrote, On 22/01/08 18:24:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486.  Note that
>>> W98 runs as well as ever.
>>
>> Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
>> is out of date more than 10 years ago.
> 
> Chuck, Jacob, this discussion does not belong in comp.lang.c. Chuck,
> if you want to continue this subscribe to comp.compilers.lcc and
> continue it there. I've even set follow-ups for you!

AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up.  The
system used to work on the 486 - I know, because I was running it. 
Then he made a revision, and it aborted the debugger on 'illegal
opcode'.  I advised him, and he couldn't find the cause!!!  Now,
years later, he continues the false claims and spouts garbage about
'obsolete'.  The fact that he couldn't find the problem within
about a month of causing it is, to me, significant.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:22:31 -0600, CBFalconer wrote
(in article <47966CA7.BC834C54@yahoo.com>):

> jacob navia wrote:
>> Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
>> is out of date more than 10 years ago.
> 
> That has nothing to do with it.  You claim your system runs on
> W98.  W98 runs on a '486.  Therefore it obviously must run your
> system.  WRONG.
> 
> And there are a fair number of '486s (and '386s) running in the
> wide world.

I have a system here running HDOS on a Z80.  It runs like a champ, and 
it never crashes or reboots, "amber screens" on me.

The Xeon box running Vista?  It's a pain in the ass, unstable, 
unreliable, it sounds like a hovercraft, and I almost never turn it on.

I think I like the "out of date" platforms that actually work.  Of 
course, I also like modern platforms that actually work too, like OS X, 
for example.


-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

CBFalconer wrote:

[removed cross post to c.l.c where this is not topical]

> Flash Gordon wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote, On 22/01/08 18:24:
>>> CBFalconer wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>>> A viable alternative test is to use a real live '486.  Note that
>>>> W98 runs as well as ever.
>>>
>>> Note that I am speaking about windows 98. Not a 486, a CPU that
>>> is out of date more than 10 years ago.
>> 
>> Chuck, Jacob, this discussion does not belong in comp.lang.c. Chuck,
>> if you want to continue this subscribe to comp.compilers.lcc and
>> continue it there. I've even set follow-ups for you!
> 
> AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up.  The
> system used to work on the 486 - I know, because I was running it.
> Then he made a revision, and it aborted the debugger on 'illegal
> opcode'.  I advised him, and he couldn't find the cause!!!  Now,
> years later, he continues the false claims and spouts garbage about
> 'obsolete'.  The fact that he couldn't find the problem within
> about a month of causing it is, to me, significant.

That's an unwarranted assumption. It could be that he knows what the
problem is, but it unwilling or unable to fix. Or it could be that
the "problem" exists in a third-party piece of code which he uses in
his debugger, whose license prevents modifications. Has he admitted
upfront that he cannot find the source of the problem on 486?

CBFalconer wrote, On 22/01/08 23:15:

<snip>

> AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up.  The

<snip>

I really don't give a monkeys. Whether and when any tool, whether 
Jacob's or not, worked on a 486 and whether and when it broke is NOT 
topical here. If you want to discuss win-lcc then do what you tell other 
people to do and subscribe to the correct group, one you are fully aware 
of, and discuss it there.

Remember, that if it is OK for YOU to discuss compiler specific issues 
in comp.lang.c then it is OK for everyone. I say it is NOT OK for 
anyone, including you.

Note that you are not discussing whether Jacob's compiler conforms to 
the C standard, you are discussing the platforms it works on.
-- 
Flash Gordon

Jacob Navia wrote:

> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine [...]

Is comp.lang.c your new blog?

Spoon wrote:
> Jacob Navia wrote:
> 
>> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine [...]
> 
> Is comp.lang.c your new blog?

LOL !

I'm amazed at how many people I've added to my killfile for this group.

It is probably a sign of my intolerance, but on the other hand I haven't
done it in other groups.

Spoon wrote:

> Jacob Navia wrote:
> 
>> I have installed windows 98 in a virtual machine [...]
> 
> Is comp.lang.c your new blog?

It was in direct response to CBFalconer's accusation that lcc-win32's
debugger fails under an 486 processor, running Windows98, which jacob
misunderstood. As Flash notes, we should stop contributing to this OT
thread, regardless of who started it.

En news:47966CA7.BC834C54@yahoo.com, CBFalconer va escriure:

> You claim your system runs on W98.  W98 runs on a '486.
> Therefore it obviously must run your system.

Ehem, sorry for the noise, but no, it is not 'obvious'.

As a counter-example, 486 did not include MMX extensions. So any program
compiled for MMX exclusively will fail to run on such a processor; yet you
can compile such a program to target Win98, provided of course you advertise
the need to use MMX-enabled processors.
You are saying that such a program cannot claim to run on [MMX-enabled] W98,
but I see no reason to forbid such a claim.

Similarly, a program which requires much memory won't run on a lower end
'486 (even if using swap disk, because the size of the swap is limited by
disk size, which is typically quite limited too...) Are you saying it is
forbidden to claim that the memory-hungry program can run on W98?

Similarly, if an IDE is designed to use at least 800�600 [...]


My understanding is that "runs on XXX" advertising means the exact opposite
of your above point: it really means any version less than XXX will not work
(or is not supported).
As an example, "this program needs a C90 compiler" usually means it is
intended to be a conforming program, it does not mean it is intended to be
strictly conforming, or even that it should work with ANY C90 compliant
compiler.


Having said that, I recognize that if a given C IDE does not run on a '486,
this limitation should be advertised as such, and voil�.


Antoine

Flash Gordon wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote, On 22/01/08 23:15:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up.  The
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I really don't give a monkeys. Whether and when any tool, whether
> Jacob's or not, worked on a 486 and whether and when it broke is NOT
> topical here. If you want to discuss win-lcc then do what you tell other
> people to do and subscribe to the correct group, one you are fully aware
> of, and discuss it there.
> 
> Remember, that if it is OK for YOU to discuss compiler specific issues
> in comp.lang.c then it is OK for everyone. I say it is NOT OK for
> anyone, including you.
> 
> Note that you are not discussing whether Jacob's compiler conforms to
> the C standard, you are discussing the platforms it works on.

I'll get off it.  However, Jacob asserts that a) his system meets
the standard and b) his system runs on W98.  Both assertions seem
to be false.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer wrote:

> Flash Gordon wrote:
>> CBFalconer wrote, On 22/01/08 23:15:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> AFAIACS what I want is for Jacob to finally admit his foul-up.  The
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> I really don't give a monkeys. Whether and when any tool, whether
>> Jacob's or not, worked on a 486 and whether and when it broke is NOT
>> topical here. If you want to discuss win-lcc then do what you tell
>> other people to do and subscribe to the correct group, one you are
>> fully aware of, and discuss it there.
>> 
>> Remember, that if it is OK for YOU to discuss compiler specific
>> issues in comp.lang.c then it is OK for everyone. I say it is NOT OK
>> for anyone, including you.
>> 
>> Note that you are not discussing whether Jacob's compiler conforms to
>> the C standard, you are discussing the platforms it works on.
> 
> I'll get off it.  However, Jacob asserts that a) his system meets
> the standard 

Which standard? IIRC he has admitted in the past that lcc-win32 does not
fully conform to C99. I believe he claims his compiler fully implements
C90, provided the appropriate switches are provided.

<snip>