joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) (03/29/89)
This has probably been asked, but I didn't see it float by. Can I replace my new 1.3 commands with my old ARP commands in my C directory? When will the 1.3 extensions for ARP be coming out? Anyways, I'm about to try this, but I may not run into problems immediately. So I thought I'd ask... (Anytime I can reduce my C directory by enough to stick the last Manx program on the disk.... Couldn't quite get "ln" to fit.) Oh -- while I'm freeing up space on my shell-disk -- which of the fonts do people think I could get away with tossing? At about 12-14K per font, it'd be nice if I could get rid of 2 or 3 I'm not going to use. Finally -- can someone In The Know explain the difference between using Jim Goodnow's "rez" program and the Amiga "Resident" command? -Joe -- Rushdie: Wonderful! You're going to kill me. What a finely-tuned response to the situation. (What he should have written?) UUCP: rutgers!dayton!joe (Feed my DHDSC - Joe Larson/MIS 1060 ATT : (612) 375-3537 pict collection) 700 on the Mall, Mpls, Mn. 55402
rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck) (03/30/89)
In article <6472@dayton.UUCP>, joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) writes: > > This has probably been asked, but I didn't see it float by. Can I replace > my new 1.3 commands with my old ARP commands in my C directory? When > will the 1.3 extensions for ARP be coming out? Thad Floryan has tested all of 'em and knows which ones are incompatible. Was it RESIDENT and ASSIGN? I forget. Thad? > Finally -- can someone In The Know explain the difference between using > Jim Goodnow's "rez" program and the Amiga "Resident" command? > Resident (1.3) works if a program is 'pure', meaning no global variables and fully re-entrant. Thus it permits you to have only one copy of the code loaded at one time, with multiple programs using it. Kinda like the shared libraries. Each invocation of the code has to allocate its own work areas (and if it executes scripts, the <$$> facility now in 1.3, which gives the current CLI number (ASSIGN HERE<$$>: "" for example) is a big help in this area). 'rez', which works only with code compiled with Manx 3.6 and above, recognizes certain explicit code sequences in the loaded code, and adds a patch to create a separate data-segment (initialized as well as uninitialized data) so that the code is loaded only once, but the data segment is created afresh for each incarnation of the program. He actually patches into the segment-list of the loaded program, (really neat.. he explained it once at BADGE about a year ago). I forget the other limitations, if any. He stopped at version '0.4', perhaps because of the known progress of 1.3's RESIDENT command. MAYBE when Manx 5.x comes out, we'll see more (no knowledge in this area, just speculation). I guess someone just oughta write a "Complete Guide To Making A Program Pure and Residentable", if not already available. But I STILL like Jim Goodnow's approach... viva la hacker. Rob Peck
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (03/30/89)
Joe Larson: You want to know if ARP 1.2 (Release 2.0) will work with WBench 1.3? Good news!! They will! However you will probably want to keep a few of the 1.3 commands because they handle the new protection bits. Here is what I use: ARP 1.2 commands except for Mount, List, Protect, Copy, and Install. ARP Mount has some interaction with 1.3 that causes problems(goes the rumor). All I know is that I had less problems after I started using the 1.3 Mount. ARP List, Protect, and Copy don't handle the new protection bits. ARP Install doesn't clear out the whole Boot block like 1.3 does which is an anti-viral feature. And that's it. You may want to use more of the 1.3 commands than I do. I have WShell which includes extra functionality so I don't miss the new features of 1.3. Dana
jbwaters@bsu-cs.UUCP (J. Brian Waters) (03/30/89)
In article <5236@ardent.UUCP>, rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck) writes: > In article <6472@dayton.UUCP>, joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) writes: > > > > This has probably been asked, but I didn't see it float by. Can I replace > > my new 1.3 commands with my old ARP commands in my C directory? When > Was it RESIDENT and ASSIGN? I forget. Thad? I know that Resident and Mount are not compatible. > I forget the other limitations, if any. He stopped at version '0.4', > perhaps because of the known progress of 1.3's RESIDENT command. Hmmm.. I only have 0.3... anyone know where I can get REZ 0.4? > Pure and Residentable", if not already available. But I STILL like > Jim Goodnow's approach... viva la hacker. Another interesting approach is used in ARP... it provides a method for the program to request the size of the stack it needs, helping to prevent both waste and crashes. A program can also know if it is resident and thus clone its data segment only when it is resident reducing the overhead when it is run from disk while still allowing it to be made resident if desired.. -- Brian Waters <backbone>!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (03/31/89)
rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck) writes: > 'rez', which works only with code compiled with Manx 3.6 and above, Actually, rez *works* with every program I've ever tried (bcpl, lattice progs, etc). I don't know that it can share code for all of them, but that's usually not why I rez things. -Miles
ecphssrw@robin.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) (04/02/89)
In article <16432@cup.portal.com>, FelineGrace@cup (Dana B Bourgeois) writes: > >Here is what I use [with 1.3 from ARP 1.2]: > >ARP List, Protect, and Copy don't handle the new protection bits. > In addition to this, which may seem fairly minor, ARP Copy also doesn't work with files written to PIPE:. Apparently, it has a test inside like if (input-file-size < my-buffer-size) copy input-file-size bytes from input to output Since the input-file-size returned by PIPE: is always 4096, ARP Copy copies the first 4096 bytes from a PIPE: file and quits. -- Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge RCKG01M@CALSTATE.BITNET ecphssrw@afws.csun.edu swalton@solar.stanford.edu ...!csun!afws.csun.edu!ecphssrw