Re: [stella] Dasm for Linux

Subject: Re: [stella] Dasm for Linux
From: "Andrew Davie" <atari2600@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:01:24 +1000
> Was it really that big a patch?  All I was doing (with the exception of
> the ulong typedef, which is really a bug, if a small one) was
> configuring the Makefile for the OP.  I'm sorry if I made it look like
> dasm was unmaintained or something, but I just wanted to solve the OP's
> problem.

I had no way of knowing, as I'm not familiar with the "patch" file method or
format.  On looking at it now, and reading your note above, it's adding and
removing lines from the original to give a new version.  I'll have a
look-see at what you're doing and why it makes a difference.

There's really nobody who totally understands the program.  Large areas of
it I haven't looked at nor played with.  What I have done is fixed bugs when
they appear, and add new capabilities when they seem to make sense.  Having
*a* maintainer is better than having none at all.  Slowly, as I find the
time, I update the coding style to try and get some consistency into it all.

> 1) the aforementioned ulong typedef (for obvious reasons).

As it happens, some weeks ago I distributed new source to various parties
who have volunteered to be official 'builders' of the binary for various
platforms.  These typedef statements were totally removed in that latest
source, and would have been released as a matter of course when the next
release came about.  I may very well have broken something in making an
assumption that the code did not NEED unsigned variables;  I'll have to
double-check that to find out WHY your Linux build wasn't working.

> 2) either the C++ style comments, or the -ansi option should be removed
>    when compiling with gcc.

Probably we'll have to junk the C++ comment style.  Just a habit I have -- 
not intentionally there.  In any case, these, TOO, were already removed in
the source distribution sent to the binary builders and won't be present
when the next release comes out.

> 3) -noixemul isn't a recognized option on any of the versions of gcc I
>    have around.

It was there when the package came to me.  It's probably an Amiga thing, in
any case I've removed it and we'll see who complains :)

> Also, having a make clean rule in the Makefile, and not including
> exp.obj (exp.obj: 80386 COFF executable not stripped - version 25970) in
> the distribution, would be other suggestions I have.

I don't understand the above.  I can't find "exp.obj" in the makefile I
have.  Perhaps another thing I've removed.  Where's that version control
when I really need it.

> A few comments in the Makefile about what to uncomment for various
> platforms might be helpful, too.  I can make a more comprehensive patch
> that addresses all these issues and submit it, if you'd like.  I've been
> meaning to write debian build rules for dasm, anyway.

Thanks, any help is welcome -- and I do appreciate your comments and
suggestions.  A patch file isn't much good for me, as I don't have the tools
to apply the patch -- and in any case I'd like to understand what changes
are being made before they're actually implemented.


Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread