OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical > Storage

DISKIO - updated version in need of TEST

<< < (3/7) > >>

David Graser:
The text file contains no information.  It is blank.

Dariusz Piatkowski:
I'm curious everyone, does anyone actually want/need the Win32 version of the code?

It seems the whole logic is re-implemented twice in DISKIO, once for OS/2 and once for Win32, that also means the same variables, funcs and procs are defined twice, which generally just makes the whole thing a mess to keep up with.

I get the idea of main entry points being named the same, but I do not understand why the remaining codebase follows the same naming convention.

Anyways, I'm thinking of completely dropping the Win32 functionality and therefore changing the package to leave out the Win32 source as well, as such, will this cauase anyone a problem?

So I am far from understanding the stipulation with this particular codebase, can anyone advise if there is anything in here that necessitates the continuation of Win32 support? If so, I think I would need to fork my changes...is that generally how things get done?

I do not like the idea of forking it, but see no point to maintaining a dead codebase either.

Thanks!

Dave Yeo:
Well, ideally would be to keep the Win32 codebase and binaries so people can do comparisons. Of course if you have no motivation to do that, you could remove them, while leaving them in history in case someone wants to resurrect them, and do a major version jump to ver 2 or fork by renaming your binary. You're the one taking on the maintainer-ship.
Hopefully you're using something like Git to maintain history.
BTW, which compiler are you using? I tried VACPP 3.08 with no joy, didn't even like the CPLUS type comments. It did build fine with OpenWatcom with this patch.

--- Code: ---From a1cf054f2665f861b537300e70f183bb447b136c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 16:42:12 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Fix compilation on OpenWatcom This macro is declared in
 the OW headers

---
 sources/perfutil.h | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sources/perfutil.h b/sources/perfutil.h
index 9cb9800..238051b 100644
--- a/sources/perfutil.h
+++ b/sources/perfutil.h
@@ -57,11 +57,12 @@ typedef HOOKDATA * PHOOKDATA;
   *
 */
 
-#define   CMD_KI_RDCNT    (0x63)
+#define   CMD_KI_RDCNT    0x63
 
 /* note: on SMP machine DosPerfSysCall() will return an array of */
 /* CPUUTIL structures, by number of processors. */
-
+
+#ifndef __WATCOMC__
 typedef struct _CPUUTIL
 {
     ULONG ulTimeLow;     /* Low 32 bits of time stamp      */
@@ -73,6 +74,7 @@ typedef struct _CPUUTIL
     ULONG ulIntrLow;     /* Low 32 bits of interrupt time  */
     ULONG ulIntrHigh;    /* High 32 bits of interrupt time */
 } CPUUTIL;
+#endif
 
 typedef CPUUTIL *PCPUUTIL;
 
--
2.11.0

--- End code ---

Tried a few things to find the divide by zero without luck and I'm not sure how to use the debugger in OW, I think I might have the HLL experimental linker screwing up wdw. Have to revisit.
Hmm, reviewing my patch, a related change got in, does VACPP need those brackets? OW didn't like them.

Martin Iturbide:
Hi

I have no interest for the Win32 version.

Regards

Andreas Schnellbacher:

--- Quote from: Dave Yeo on December 24, 2020, 04:19:29 am ---I tried VACPP 3.08 with no joy, didn't even like the CPLUS type comments.

--- End quote ---
BTW: No, that can't be the reason. "//" is defined in VAC 3.0.8 as single-line comment string, as well as C-Set/2 supports this.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version