lcc-win and windows 98

[jacob navia]

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]

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.

 

[CBFalconer]

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.

 

[Jack Klein]

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

 

[jacob navia]

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.

 

[Flash Gordon]

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

CBFalconer wrote:


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.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

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"?

 

[CBFalconer]

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.

 

[CBFalconer]

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

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.

 

[Randy Howard]

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.

 

[Flash Gordon]

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

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.

 

[Spoon]

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

Is comp.lang.c your new blog?

 

[Mark Bluemel]

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.

 

[santosh]

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.

 

[Antoine Leca]

En 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

 

[CBFalconer]

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



<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.

 

[santosh]

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>