lcc-win and windows 98

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jacob navia, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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, Jan 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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, Jan 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia

    CBFalconer Guest

    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
    CBFalconer, Jan 22, 2008
    #3
  4. jacob navia

    Jack Klein Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:51:10 +0100, jacob navia <>
    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
    Jack Klein, Jan 22, 2008
    #4
  5. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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, Jan 22, 2008
    #5
  6. jacob navia

    Flash Gordon Guest

    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
    Flash Gordon, Jan 22, 2008
    #6
  7. [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"?
    Kelsey Bjarnason, Jan 22, 2008
    #7
  8. jacob navia

    CBFalconer Guest

    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
    CBFalconer, Jan 22, 2008
    #8
  9. jacob navia

    CBFalconer Guest

    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
    CBFalconer, Jan 22, 2008
    #9
  10. jacob navia

    Randy Howard Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:22:31 -0600, CBFalconer wrote
    (in article <>):

    > 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
    Randy Howard, Jan 22, 2008
    #10
  11. jacob navia

    Flash Gordon Guest

    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
    Flash Gordon, Jan 23, 2008
    #11
  12. jacob navia

    Spoon Guest

    Jacob Navia wrote:

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


    Is comp.lang.c your new blog?
    Spoon, Jan 23, 2008
    #12
  13. jacob navia

    Mark Bluemel Guest

    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.
    Mark Bluemel, Jan 23, 2008
    #13
  14. jacob navia

    santosh Guest

    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.
    santosh, Jan 23, 2008
    #14
  15. jacob navia

    Antoine Leca Guest

    En news:, 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 voilà.


    Antoine
    Antoine Leca, Jan 23, 2008
    #15
  16. jacob navia

    CBFalconer Guest

    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, Jan 24, 2008
    #16
  17. jacob navia

    santosh Guest

    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>
    santosh, Jan 24, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jacob navia

    Warnings in lcc-win

    jacob navia, Sep 27, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    1,690
    Charlie Gordon
    Oct 3, 2007
  2. jacob navia

    ANN Linux version of lcc-win

    jacob navia, Oct 5, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    340
    Keith Thompson
    Oct 5, 2007
  3. Eddie

    Bug/problem with lcc-win

    Eddie, Jun 3, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    69
    Views:
    1,275
    Richard
    Jun 14, 2008
  4. jacob navia

    64 bit version of lcc-win

    jacob navia, Jun 8, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,507
    Keith Thompson
    Jun 8, 2008
  5. Krist
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    699
    Arne Vajhøj
    May 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page