Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!cam-cl!news
From: dahe@cl.cam.ac.uk (David Elworthy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
Subject: Re: More GhostScript Problems
Message-ID: <1991May20.104218.15576@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 20 May 91 10:42:18 GMT
References: <1991May18.154626.22804@demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: dahe@cl.cam.ac.uk (David Elworthy)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Lines: 41

In article <1991May18.154626.22804@demon.co.uk> Paul Moore <pmoore@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
> until I remembered someone mentioning that the wimpslot on the !Run file
> was too small (why wasn't this included in the patch?)

It was certainly in the patch I sent to Alan - a change to 220k.

> Now, I am getting
>an address exception at &7FE4 (obviously wrong, as application space
>starts at &8000!) every time.
>
>What is going on here? My machine is an A310, with 4M of RAM and an 80M
>SCSI hard disk. My CLib is 3.66, but the same happens with 3.50. I have
>FPE 2.80 and Colours 0.52.

No idea what is causing this - I tested the release on a vanilla A310 with one
floppy and CLib 3.66, and it worked. That is really all I can do.

> By the way, I would normally
>expect a rebuild to be done by a simple "AMU", with no parameters, unless
>it is explicitly stated otherwise in a !ReadMe file, and I would prefer
>it if the makefile did not depend on OS variables, such as <C$RISC_OSLib>
>in !GS.

The development was not done with, but I take your point about
mentioning this in the release. Concerning the use of C$RISC_OSLib, you either
rely on system variables, which are defined by typing *set once, or you rely
on the disc structure of the machine it is being compiled on, which
potentially needs to be changed all over the place.

>While much of the above ought to be done by the original developer, in
>theory, I am aware that it is a real pain to do, in practice. (I know MY
>stuff never follows all of the above rules!)

Then cut the hypocrisy. You are getting essentially for free something which
took similar effort and skills to what I used to be paid a good salary for. If
you don't like the result, then you have the sources - go ahead and produce
your own version.

>Gustav. (pmoore@cix.compulink.co.uk)

-- david