[Coco] cprep19 __FILE__ fix?
Stephen H. Fischer
SFischer1 at Mindspring.com
Wed May 25 18:28:57 EDT 2011
Hi,
I discovered and downloaded the source for c.comp a few days ago, but I
cannot find out where it came from now.
It included source for Clib. Both Krieder's and MW versions.
I put it up on my web page:
http://home.mindspring.com/~sfischer1/
I do not see ctime.
Enjoy.
SHF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Furman" <n6il at ocs.net>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] cprep19 __FILE__ fix?
>
> On May 25, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Willard Goosey wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:12:09PM -0700, Stephen H. Fischer wrote:
>>> The __DATE__ should (must) be changed to return a date in the 2xxx range
>>> as
>>> it is "Today's" date.
>>
>> OK, easy enough. But someone who's good at binary patching and/or
>> disassembling things should fix Krieder's ctime() properly. And that,
>> btw, would not be me. I'm not very good with 6x09 assembler.
>
>
> Willard, I looked into this a few months ago. Off the top of my haead:
>
> 1) I have some source for the Krieder C library, but when I assembled it,
> it was not exactly the same as binary copies floating around. This
> reduces my confidence that the resulting clib after hacking will actually
> work properly, and makes it difficult to generate a patch that will always
> work. The date command returns the correct year.
>
> 2) clib's asctime function had some contribution to the problem but the
> details escape me ATM.
>
> 3) I took a look at Nitros9's date command and it has some Y2Kish stuff
> there but it's not clear if it works correctly. The algorithm there
> seemed a bit convoluted or worked the problem backwards (from my
> perspective) for some unknown reason (to optimize it? for 8-bit math
> apparently?). The comment in date.asm is from Grandpa Gene:
> * 5 1996/09/25 Gene Heskett
> * Made Y2K compliant.
>
> 4) It appears that Nitros9 keeps a 1-byte year, so this is what one would
> expect F$Time to return. According to OS9Defs:
> D.Time equ . System Time
> D.Year rmb 1
>
> I'll try to fill in the rest of details from my previous investigation of
> this issue later this evening.
>
> The result was that to fix UUCPBB (Which reported the year as 19111 in
> some places and 111 in others) I basically changed any occurrence of
> '19%d', year to '%d', 1900+year. This was a hack that doesn't address the
> real lower level problem.
>
More information about the Coco
mailing list