OSLib 6.70 released

[Tony van der Hoff]

Erik Groenhuis <e.groenhuis at xs4all.nl> wrote in message
<738108d84c.root at hop2.xs4all.nl>

> Latest news: I've tried my hand at compiling OSLib and OSLibSupport on
> Unix. After some minor problems, this worked. And guess what: The
> resulting OSLibSupport and OSLibSupport32 libraries are 112 bytes each.

Hardly surprising. I'd cocked up the make file...

> (Oh, and they don't have ',ffd' in their name either).
I don't think they should have...
> 
> Compiling under Unix wasn't *too* demanding: first grab the gccsdk
> sources with CVS (*has* to be in /home/riscos, or OSLib won't compile).
> Make it, following the instructions in README and taking the defaults.
> 
Yes, I chose, for the sake of simplicity, not to bother with an autoconfig
for this release. Maybe that was a mistake, but I didn't want to have too
many dependencies. If you have any other suggestions/patches for the readme,
I'd be pleased to receive them.

> Fetching the sources for OSLib. Read the README and make. Easy peasy.
> Well, except for the fact that making OSLib is not satisfied with just
> the cross compiler. It stumbles on the Test directory, where the
> compilation of a testprogram requires the libgcc library file.
> 
True, I'm inclined to think that if you're building under UNIX, you'd have
that sort of thing installed. It surprises me that you don't mention libgcc
in the context of building the tools. Or have I misunderstood what you're
saying?

> The strange thing is, that the Source subdir is now littered with *.o
> files of zero length. But the OSLib and OSLib32 libraries are nice and
> big.
> 
Those empty files are only there to satisfiy the make dependencies, as are
upper-case .h files. The .o files for the individual swis are named by SWI
code, and are deleted as soon as they've been inserted in the library. There
are two .o objects for each SWI, i.e. several thousand!

> The OSLibSupport subdir has *.o files that *do* have a sensible size,
> but for that branch the libraries are virtually empty!
> 
> It's the world turned on its head.
> 
Not really. The makefile simply wasn't putting the nice objects in the
library :(

> Anyhoo, I might set my mind to try to figure this out this week an see
> if I can produce a sizable set of OSLibSupport libraries. And file some
> official bug reports.
>
Any patches you wish to contribute will be very welcome (but I've fixed that
make file :-)

Thanks,
-- 
Tony van der Hoff
Buckinghamshire England