8 bit os_f handles

[Daniel Ellis]

David J. Ruck writes:
 > On Wed 29 Mar, Daniel Ellis wrote:
 > > Tom Hughes writes:
 > >  > Surely the
 > >  > point here though is that any code using os_f will have to include
 > >  > os.h either directly or indirectly, and the Makefile would normally
 > >  > have a dependency on that for any source file using os_f.
 > > 
 > > Precisely.  The only ambiguity is whether the date stamp on os.h is
 > > sufficiently late enough.  If you unpack an archive the files will
 > > usually have date stamps according to their source, so if I recompiled
 > > my sources yesterday, the new library was written the day before
 > > yesterday, and I install it today, then I don't suppose my code will
 > > get remade by the make utility...
 > 
 > This is why you do a make all after installing new libraries. If you
 > think users are not aware of this is, it should be stipulated in the
 > library instalation instructions.

Surely you mean make clean followed by make all.  My point was that
you might have object files date stamped later than the new library header
files which then woudn't get remade.

This is all starting to sound like the argument over whether the
_kernel_oserror buffer in the shared c library should be corrected to
be 0x100 instead of 100 bytes long!

It's a shame there's no way (AFAIAA) of specifying which version of OSLib you
expect to be linking against in the way you specify the Wimp version
when you Wimp_Initialise and can give different behaviour depending.

-- 
Dan Ellis
Software Engineer
Climate Physics Group
Mulard Space Science Laboratory