Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jochen Schäfer

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
31
Games / PrBoom+
« on: June 05, 2021, 03:28:07 pm »
Hi guys.

I have ported PrBoom+, which is a source port of DOOM, running on SDL2.
I have put a prereleases package on my Github repo here: https://github.com/josch1710/prboom-plus/releases/tag/v2.6um-alpha1
In the archive, you find the two binaries for the game and the multiplayer server, as well as prboom.wad and the shareware version of Doom.
If you have the original DOOM games, you can put the WADs in the program directory or under /@unixroot/usr/(local/)share/(games/)doom.
If you want the midi to play, you need to download the timidity patches from here: https://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/timidity/timidity.tar.gz and install them in /@unixroot/usr/(local/)share/timidity.

My plan is to submit all my bugfixes for SDL/2 and patches for PrBoom+ in the next days.
After that I want to package everything for easier installation.



Enjoy!

32
Applications / Re: OpenSource WishList
« on: January 20, 2021, 12:34:08 pm »
I would like to see KDevelop or something similar.

33
Multimedia / Re: Updated Uniaud32 build
« on: January 12, 2021, 02:24:52 pm »
I tried uniaud32-linux-5.10.5-20210108.zip on an Yoga 11e (1st gen) and now I have no stutters anymore, volume control works and Dosbox makes noise again.
Good job, Paul.

PS: I will also test the test builds on a T420.

34
Article Discussions / Re: OS/2 - ArcaOS 64Bits Kernel Discussion
« on: December 11, 2020, 09:46:56 am »
Physical addresses under OS/2 are also limited to 32-bit. Which means your approach of "4 GB of physical memory per core" cannot work.
I remember, reading that the 64bit Darwin kernel always presents 32bit software with a 4 GB address space of its own. It does this via virtual addressing. This could be a way to go for OS/2, I think.

35
Article Discussions / Re: OS/2 - ArcaOS 64Bits Kernel Discussion
« on: December 11, 2020, 09:42:36 am »
And 64-bit is a hoax. I have a W10 64-bit from work, everything is bigger [..]
That's not a hoax, it is to be expected. If you want to address 64bit instead of 32bit, you need a bigger pointer. Most C/C++ compilers will make their types bigger, e.g. int going from 32bit to 64bit, so the data grows.  Everything grows, if you switch word size (32bit vs. 64bit). It was like that with the translation from 8bit to 16bit, then from 16bit to 32bit.
So, in a nutshell: Making your word size bigger, makes your executables and your data bigger. That's the downside for getting a so much bigger address space.

36
Programming / Re: Compile under ArcaOS
« on: November 24, 2020, 09:44:48 am »
Should almost never need -Zexe now a days. Last time I used it was for testing building something that only had a makefile. When it worked I fixed the makefile to use $exeext which on OS/2 was set to .exe, eg foo$(exeext)
Autoconf on OS/2 will set $exeext correctly and for configure scripts created somewhere else, export exeext=.exe in the environment (I prefer config.site) will add the .exe suffix.
Yes, you are correct, if it's a autoconf system. Otherwise, you have to add -Zexe, which does not hurt anyway ;-)

37
Programming / Re: Compile under ArcaOS
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:00:27 am »
I'd like to add to Dave's comment about -Zomf, that sometimes -Zexe is required, especially on configure scripts, because they sometimes assume, that you are a Unix box and so have no exe extension. -Zexe appends .exe, if it is not given as part of the -o outfile.

38
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 19, 2020, 07:48:00 pm »
I did some tests on Linux with an version of Dosbox installed through the package system and the newest source code compilation. With the packaged version, Windows 95 boots and with the newest one, it does not.
Interesting enough, the FreeDOS works with both versions.

I think, we have a regression here. I will try to issue an bug report.

39
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 13, 2020, 10:13:46 pm »
I could boot from a FreeDOS boot disk. So, I guess, the boot in itself should work.
Until now, I couldn't figure out why the Windows 95 boot image doesn't work. It seems, that the image is not mounted anymore after boot.
The missing os message comes form the bootsector of the image.

40
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 11, 2020, 01:48:46 pm »
Damn it. I knew, I'd miss something.
Thanks Paul.

EDIT: It worked.

41
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 11, 2020, 08:47:45 am »
It's GCC 9, the Watcom linker etc. from Yum.
I put "-g" on CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS, but in the Watcom debuggers and the IBM C Compilers debugger, all I get is assembly. All my attempts to select sources, failed for me.

You're compiling with at least LDFLAGS=-Zomf ? You also have to use an IBM debugger as the Watcom won't work with the STAB debug format.
Yes, and some other -Z. I appended my config.site. When wanting to debug, I switch to a debug config, where I added -g to C(XX)FLAGS and LDFLAGS and removed -O2. Do I have to add something more?

42
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 11, 2020, 08:41:07 am »
I was able to install and run Windows 95 under Dosbox in ArcaOS 5.0.1 some months ago, BUT it was really unusable. It usually crashed after a few seconds after the desktop was loaded.
Do you remember which version, you used back then?

43
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 09, 2020, 12:09:14 pm »
It's GCC 9, the Watcom linker etc. from Yum.
I put "-g" on CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS, but in the Watcom debuggers and the IBM C Compilers debugger, all I get is assembly. All my attempts to select sources, failed for me.

44
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 09, 2020, 09:48:49 am »
I would think, that this is a port issue, first. If it would be broken in Dosbox (entirely possible), I would think, that this gets fixed immediately.
I have to sort out how to debug stuff, because I can't get any OS/2 debugger to see debug symbols.

45
Applications / Re: Windows 95 in DOSBox/2
« on: November 07, 2020, 09:29:01 am »
So, it seems that the boot features doesn't work correctly. I tried a boot disk image, but that wouldn't  boot either.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12