Author Topic: HJWasm  (Read 20153 times)

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #105 on: July 26, 2015, 09:33:32 AM »
Gunther I didn't know JWasm had been for many other OS's - actually I sort of knew but forgot - so perhaps it shouldn't be a big problem. Still it doesn't happen by itself. If the HJ version for (e.g.) OS/2 were already ready just testing it would be a job ...

jj2007 you're prob right ... but may depend on what counts as a "level", for instance "EXITM" constitutes another level all by itself in some cases at least. And I love that phrase "it would be nice if somebody ["else" is implied :)] could ...". That is precisely the problem, who wants to do the work? (Who will bell the cat, to use an ancient proverb some may remember). That's why whatever does get done, is a one-person job
I am NaN ;)

Gunther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
  • Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #106 on: July 27, 2015, 02:34:28 AM »
Hi rrr,

Gunther I didn't know JWasm had been for many other OS's - actually I sort of knew but forgot - so perhaps it shouldn't be a big problem. Still it doesn't happen by itself. If the HJ version for (e.g.) OS/2 were already ready just testing it would be a job ...

but it is. You could check this link to verify it.

Gunther
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #107 on: July 29, 2015, 01:10:24 AM »
If the HJ version for (e.g.) OS/2 were already ready just testing it would be a job ...

Quote from: Gunther
but it is. You could check this link

- no, "HJ" is abbreviation for "HJWasm" not "JWasm". HJ may well be ready for OS/2, FAIK, but hasn't been tested (AFAIK)
I am NaN ;)

Gunther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
  • Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #108 on: July 29, 2015, 01:36:43 AM »
Hi rrr,

- no, "HJ" is abbreviation for "HJWasm" not "JWasm". HJ may well be ready for OS/2, FAIK, but hasn't been tested (AFAIK)

lets not practice such superior attitude. The basis of jWasm was Watcom's Wasm, while the basis of hjWasm is jWasm. You can see this by checking the sources. So here's my question: Could you test hjWasm under OS/2, please? That would be a great help. I've only an old AMD K5 box running with OS/2 Warp 4. I think that's not good enough.

In the mean time I'll try to compile hjWasm for Linux and BSD. That's not a big thing. The maintainer for the jWasm fork is Habran, without any doubts. I think, he has the last word.

Gunther
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #109 on: July 29, 2015, 08:07:07 AM »
Could you test hjWasm under OS/2, please?

- no, I have no OS/2 system. My point, which seems possibly to have been missed, is merely that until software is tested u don't know whether it works; that testing is a necessary job. Ask any program manager: if testing isn't necessary why is he paying all these people to do it?
I am NaN ;)

Gunther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
  • Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #110 on: July 29, 2015, 09:51:51 PM »
Hi rrr,

- no, I have no OS/2 system. My point, which seems possibly to have been missed, is merely that until software is tested u don't know whether it works; that testing is a necessary job. Ask any program manager: if testing isn't necessary why is he paying all these people to do it?

testing is undoubtedly a necessary task. But jWasm works without problems under OS/2 and I think that at least hjWasm version 2.13 will also work, because Habran did change only 3 source code files. The appropriate DOS version works fine and you can download it here. But that must be tested.

Gunther
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #111 on: July 30, 2015, 01:04:49 AM »
Quote from: Gunner
I think that at least hjWasm version 2.13 will also work [for OS/2]

- agree, and after all it's hardly "mission-critical". DOS seems much more important
I am NaN ;)

Gunther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
  • Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #112 on: July 30, 2015, 08:17:52 AM »
Hi rrr,

- agree, and after all it's hardly "mission-critical". DOS seems much more important

the DOS version has mainly some nostalgic reasons. OS/2 (I think it's now called eStation, or so) is another point. I hope that FORTRANS can help a bit. The critical part is that: We must find a working gcc under OS/2. The old version (I think version 3.x) was maintained by Eberhard Mattes from the University Stuttgart. But I've seen him not for a long time in the net. I hope he's doing fine. We'll see.

Gunther
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them.

FORTRANS

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #113 on: July 31, 2015, 04:53:06 AM »
Hi Gunther,

The critical part is that: We must find a working gcc under OS/2.

   Maybe this page will help?

OS/2 port of the GNU C Compiler

   Hobbes (OS/2 repository) has some old versions.  EMX was
a programming environment that used a variant of gcc, if I
read things correctly.

HTH,

Steve N.

Gunther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
  • Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names
Re: HJWasm
« Reply #114 on: July 31, 2015, 08:55:12 PM »
Thank you Steve, that could help.
   Hobbes (OS/2 repository) has some old versions.  EMX was
a programming environment that used a variant of gcc, if I
read things correctly.

Yes, with EMX maintained by Eberhard Mattes one could write OS/2 or DOS programs. It was a bit crazy, but it did work. Furthermore, some EMX binaries were necessary for the EmTex package (LaTex for OS/2), also maintained by Eberhard Mattes.

Gunther
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them.