Thread overview | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
July 07, 2003 dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
I'm trying to build a Pharlap version of a program, but dmc fails to find my 386link program. Even though it is on my PATH. dmc ident.c ..\lib\wattcpdf.lib x32.lib dosx32.lib @MAKE0000.@@@ 386link ident -tc -l e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\phar 70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\pha r70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc d:\prog\dmc\lib\sdx Can't run '386link', check PATH >path PATH=d:\prog\tc;c:\bat;e:\djgpp\bin;c:\perl;d:\prog\ow\binw;d:\hc\bin;d:\prog\wd osx\bin;c:\util;c:\util\zip;f:\windows\system32;e:\net\watt\bin;d:\phar70\bin;c:\4dos; e:\net\ppp;c:\util\norton 386link is in d:\phar70\bin. Is it a problem with the long 386link cmd-line? If so, how can I make dmc put that in a response file? dmc 8.34.12, Pharlap 7.0 SDK -- Gisle V. # rm /bin/laden /bin/laden: Not found |
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gisle Vanem | Why do you want to use Pharlap?
I have used Pharlap, DOS4GW and DOSX as it came with Zortech/Symantec and now Digital Mars
C++ and found DOSX to be the clear winner. Unless you have specific reasons for using
Pharlap, you might be better of using DOSX.
Gisle Vanem wrote:
> I'm trying to build a Pharlap version of a program, but dmc fails to find my 386link program. Even though it is on my PATH.
>
> dmc ident.c ..\lib\wattcpdf.lib x32.lib dosx32.lib @MAKE0000.@@@
>
> 386link ident -tc -l e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\phar 70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\pha r70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc d:\prog\dmc\lib\sdx
>
> Can't run '386link', check PATH
>
> >path
> PATH=d:\prog\tc;c:\bat;e:\djgpp\bin;c:\perl;d:\prog\ow\binw;d:\hc\bin;d:\prog\wd osx\bin;c:\util;c:\util\zip;f:\windows\system32;e:\net\watt\bin;d:\phar70\bin;c:\4dos; e:\net\ppp;c:\util\norton
>
> 386link is in d:\phar70\bin.
>
> Is it a problem with the long 386link cmd-line? If so, how can I make dmc put that in a response file?
>
> dmc 8.34.12, Pharlap 7.0 SDK
>
> --
> Gisle V.
>
> # rm /bin/laden
> /bin/laden: Not found
--
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper
|
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jan Knepper | "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:
> Why do you want to use Pharlap?
> I have used Pharlap, DOS4GW and DOSX as it came with Zortech/Symantec and now Digital Mars
> C++ and found DOSX to be the clear winner. Unless you have specific reasons for using
> Pharlap, you might be better of using DOSX.
I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX.
Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW.
Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.
--gv
|
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gisle Vanem | "Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX. > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW. > Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO. Flashtek is a pile of crap. It fails to run a simple "Hello world" program under Win-XP DOS-box. >dmc -v2 -mx hello.c x32.lib scppn -v2 -mx hello.c Digital Mars C/C++ Compiler Version 8.34.12n Copyright (C) Digital Mars 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. Written by Walter Bright www.digitalmars.com 'hello.c' 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdio.h' 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdlib.h' 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\heapstat.h' 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\dos.h' main C/C++ Compiler complete. Code: 0x0015 (21) Data: 0x0017 (23) Time: 0.32 seconds link d:\prog\dmc\lib\cx+hello,hello,,x32/noi; > hello.exe causes a trap in NTVDM: Illegal instruction at CS:0070 IP:03f1 OP: ff ff 00 00 00 --gv |
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gisle Vanem | Yes, the problem is the command line length is too long. It has to be 127 characters or less. To use a response file, you'll probably need to do the link separately. -Walter "Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:bebv4p$en8$1@digitaldaemon.com... > I'm trying to build a Pharlap version of a program, but dmc fails to find my 386link program. Even though it is on my PATH. > > dmc ident.c ..\lib\wattcpdf.lib x32.lib dosx32.lib @MAKE0000.@@@ > > 386link ident -tc -l e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\phar > 70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\pha > r70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc d:\prog\dmc\lib\sdx > > Can't run '386link', check PATH > > >path > PATH=d:\prog\tc;c:\bat;e:\djgpp\bin;c:\perl;d:\prog\ow\binw;d:\hc\bin;d:\pro g\wd > osx\bin;c:\util;c:\util\zip;f:\windows\system32;e:\net\watt\bin;d:\phar70\bi n;c:\4dos; > e:\net\ppp;c:\util\norton > > 386link is in d:\phar70\bin. > > Is it a problem with the long 386link cmd-line? If so, how can I make dmc put > that in a response file? > > dmc 8.34.12, Pharlap 7.0 SDK > > -- > Gisle V. > > # rm /bin/laden > /bin/laden: Not found > > > |
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gisle Vanem | Gisle Vanem wrote: > "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote: > > > Why do you want to use Pharlap? > > I have used Pharlap, DOS4GW and DOSX as it came with Zortech/Symantec and now Digital Mars > > C++ and found DOSX to be the clear winner. Unless you have specific reasons for using > > Pharlap, you might be better of using DOSX. > > I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX. Yup. > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW. Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO. Oh yeah? How long have you been using either one of them? -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper |
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gisle Vanem | Gisle Vanem wrote: > > I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX. > > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW. > > Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO. > > Flashtek is a pile of crap. It fails to run a simple "Hello world" program under Win-XP DOS-box. That might or might not have anything to do with Flashtek. Why would you want to run a 32 bits DOS application in a Windows XP command line anyways??? I run DOS 32 bits on DOS and Win 32 bits console from a command line. > >dmc -v2 -mx hello.c x32.lib > scppn -v2 -mx hello.c > Digital Mars C/C++ Compiler Version 8.34.12n > Copyright (C) Digital Mars 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. > Written by Walter Bright > www.digitalmars.com > 'hello.c' > 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdio.h' > 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdlib.h' > 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\heapstat.h' > 'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\dos.h' > main > C/C++ Compiler complete. Code: 0x0015 (21) Data: 0x0017 (23) Time: 0.32 seconds > > link d:\prog\dmc\lib\cx+hello,hello,,x32/noi; > > > hello.exe causes a trap in NTVDM: > Illegal instruction at CS:0070 IP:03f1 > OP: ff ff 00 00 00 Have you tried the version on www.dosextender.com -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper |
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jan Knepper | "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote: > That might or might not have anything to do with Flashtek. > Why would you want to run a 32 bits DOS application in a Windows XP command line > anyways??? > I run DOS 32 bits on DOS and Win 32 bits console from a command line. Why do you answer a question with an unrelated question? I expect the same exe to run under Win-XP and plain DOS. Why keep 2 exes for the same job? If that's impossible with Flashtek, please say so. > Have you tried the version on www.dosextender.com Do you mean the "*NEW VERSION* Updated May 15, 2001" ? Yes I do; is there a newer version? --gv |
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jan Knepper | "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:
> > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW. Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.
>
> Oh yeah?
> How long have you been using either one of them?
Pharlap since 1992, djgpp since 1994.
--gv
|
July 07, 2003 Re: dmc and Pharlap | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gisle Vanem | Gisle Vanem wrote: > "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote: > > > That might or might not have anything to do with Flashtek. > > Why would you want to run a 32 bits DOS application in a Windows XP command line > > anyways??? > > I run DOS 32 bits on DOS and Win 32 bits console from a command line. > > Why do you answer a question with an unrelated question? Oh, is it unrelated? I would not perfer to run a Formula-1 race car on a dirt road... > I expect the same exe to run under Win-XP and plain DOS. Why keep 2 exes for the same job? If that's impossible with Flashtek, please say so. I do not know if that is possible with DOSX or not. I have used it up to W2K's command line where it didn't seem to be a problem. I have not actively used ANY dos extender in development for the last 3/4 years. There is no reason to explain the benefits of running a native executable. What you can do is write a WINSTUB.exe that executes <program>X.exe (DOSX version) when you are NOT running on Win32 and run the native Win32 when you are... > > Have you tried the version on www.dosextender.com > Do you mean the "*NEW VERSION* Updated May 15, 2001" ? > Yes I do; is there a newer version? Not that I am aware off. -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation