English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Other

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 14 October 2009, 21:30   #1
Shadowfire
Registered User
Shadowfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 546
SFS on base 68000

I have tested SFS on a dual boot (68000/68030) 3.1 system, and it guru's when booting in 68000 mode.

Has anyone attempted to compile SFS? I'm thinking about setting up a C environment and having a go at it, to try and get a 68000 version. The SFS package uploaded to Aminet has two object files, cachedio.o and deviceio.o, but no associated source files (I presume that these were written in assembler and the author didn't include the source code), which would be a problem if the incompatibility is within these files.
Shadowfire is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 14 October 2009, 21:49   #2
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,536
SFS is made for 020+ only.
Photon is offline  
Old 15 October 2009, 01:18   #3
Shadowfire
Registered User
Shadowfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 546
Yeah, I was wondering how difficult it would be to modify it for 68000. Going to be very difficult without the source code for the assembler routines, though.
Shadowfire is offline  
Old 15 October 2009, 01:23   #4
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,536
Well, it either takes releasing the sources openly, or someone resourcing the binaries and spending the time to make them work, then replace the non-68000 instructions with 68000 instructions.

If the sources are available, it's probably a matter of changing a setting and recompiling them. If the sources were available, that'd probably been done by now?

Dunno why it was originally 68020+ only, but surely it must have something to do with an enormous speed gain.

Sorry. I really must stop nibbling those spotty sarcasm-mushrooms!!!!1one
Photon is offline  
Old 16 October 2009, 00:03   #5
Cammy
Registered User
Cammy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 33
Posts: 1,135
You might be better off looking for PFS3 or AFS to use on your 68000 partition. Both of these file systems are superior to FFS, and in some ways can perform better than SFS anyway.
Cammy is offline  
Old 16 October 2009, 09:39   #6
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 12,103
SFS is an open source project. Hence why there are ports to MorphOS, AmigaOS4 even AROS.

Because it has targeted native x86, PPC and M68k CPU's I doubt very much if there is much raw assembler in the code. Meaning it may be possible to create binaries which do not need 020+ cpus.

Last edited by alexh; 16 October 2009 at 09:45.
alexh is online now  
Old 18 October 2009, 20:22   #7
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,536
Yeah, right now it's targeted at a subset of M68k CPUs.

But yes, it would be cool if they could recompile it so all Amiga owners can enjoy it!
Photon is offline  
Old 18 October 2009, 21:27   #8
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 12,103
No-one is going to do it for you. Either you get to grips with Amiga development, C compilers etc. or you go without.

And as I've said in another thread the updates over the last 10 years have not been released. Version 1.84 (i.e. 1.084) is the last for which the source is available. The latest being 1.279
alexh is online now  
Old 20 October 2009, 14:07   #9
Shadowfire
Registered User
Shadowfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 546
Actually, it looks like they have a CVS repository up with the sources. If I get the inclination, I'll pull them & see how much work it is to recompile.
Shadowfire is offline  
Old 20 October 2009, 14:16   #10
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 12,103
All that is, is the source included with SFS 1.084 archive. There have been no commits since the original files.

The sourceforge area was set up by Michal Schulz of AROS not either of the SFS authors.
alexh is online now  
Old 20 October 2009, 19:32   #11
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexh View Post
No-one is going to do it for you. Either you get to grips with Amiga development, C compilers etc. or you go without.

And as I've said in another thread the updates over the last 10 years have not been released. Version 1.84 (i.e. 1.084) is the last for which the source is available. The latest being 1.279
If you knew me (as your last two smug comments suggest you don't), I'd sooner resource all binaries and remove the incompatible instructions than install a c development system on my Amigas. I'm an assembler coder and defender of OCS and 68000 when (it seems) most Amigans think the minimum Amiga to care about is an A1200 with turbo card, and all the rest can be thrown away. There are too many slow and big c programs for Amiga made through history already anyway, so what I do I do in asm for OCS/68000 AND UP.

Surely, though, you see I'm not going to do all that work if someone that already have have a c devsys set up and know what they're doing can simply get the latest released source and set a few flags and recompile it.


Developing for a subset of M68k has been a common issue on Amiga, and I'm sure I'll see it for future software. It's a complete showstopper and criticizing it is always correct, regardless of whether the development progress/circumstances are known or not.
Photon is offline  
Old 20 October 2009, 19:47   #12
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 12,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photon View Post
I'd sooner resource all binaries and remove the incompatible instructions than install a c development system on my Amigas.
Heh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photon View Post
I'm not going to do all that work if someone that already have have a c devsys set up and know what they're doing can simply get the latest released source and set a few flags and recompile it.
When you first posted I asked BuZz of Exotica to take a look at it. He is a good developer and has ported C-code programs from OS4 to 3.x in the past. He was a bit concious that the only source was the 1.084 and if anyone would actually want it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photon View Post
Developing for a subset of M68k has been a common issue on Amiga, and I'm sure I'll see it for future software. It's a complete showstopper and criticizing it is always correct, regardless of whether the development progress/circumstances are known or not.
Depends if the application is impractical for a 68000. Obviously in the case of SFS, a file system, it is not.. but I would question the rationale of say a 3D graphics card driver or a video media player.
alexh is online now  
Old 20 October 2009, 20:47   #13
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,536
Well, those would be impractical for any Amiga less than 68060@80 too... unless you want to watch crap :P

3d gfx cards, video player, browser with scripting languages et al... the barrier that divides modern computers from even the fastest least old Motorola Amiga. For any other type of app, I'd say all of them are suited for 68000. Hell, even Real3D was usable on my A500! (Render times were long though, hehe )


And yeah, I can chat with Buzz what he thinks on irc tonight.
Photon is offline  
Old 23 October 2009, 03:21   #14
Shadowfire
Registered User
Shadowfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 546
I pulled a few of the .c files from the html repository browser.
There is next to no information about the compile environment. A quick check with StormC quickly brought up typedef errors.
Additionally, there are pragmas that are obviously assembler MULU64 directives. So, yes, there is a small amount of embedded assembler in the C files. Which is why it chokes on a 68000.
If I can make some time this weekend I'll see if I can un-optimize the code and get it to compile for a 68000.
Shadowfire is offline  
Old 28 October 2009, 13:36   #15
TotO
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowfire View Post
If I can make some time this weekend I'll see if I can un-optimize the code and get it to compile for a 68000.
I hope you can compile it for 68000 !!!
 
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sierra, all your base are belong to us... Fragger Nostalgia & memories 15 16 June 2010 10:31
Base Jumpers Graham Humphrey request.Old Rare Games 22 16 July 2009 20:51
Base Jumpers CD32 sut support.WinUAE 1 13 March 2006 22:15
Game Base 64 V2 plasmatron Retrogaming General Discussion 14 03 September 2004 23:02
Base Jumpers CD³² MethodGit request.Old Rare Games 4 22 January 2002 05:32

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.11091 seconds with 15 queries