09 April 2024, 11:14 | #41 |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,351
|
|
09 April 2024, 11:26 | #42 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 2,029
|
Quote:
And file size is stored as 2 longs or 3 words (this is enough for file size) in different place. For OFFSET_BEGINING 2 longs or 3 words are necessary, again easy using combination of D0 and D1. And for expansion.library, only 2 changes must be done. If I understand correctly all infos. 1st. Expansion library must be available to close like every standard Amiga library. 2nd. Allocaction memory must be changed from chip mem (D1=2) to any mem (D1=1). Then first opening will be for chip mem, and after closing this lib. Expansion.library will be opened in fast mem (if available). |
|
09 April 2024, 11:42 | #43 | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,302
|
Quote:
All these ideas would work if you would have a living software ecosystem where you could tell authors "please recompile your software", but we don't. This design is *stuck*. You can create a new "Examine64()/ExNext64()" with a new fib structure, but that does not say what legacy applications see with Examine()/ExNext() on a large file. There are only bad options - either fail, or report a wrong result, again with very little gains for practical Amiga applications. A 4GB file on such an old system? What for? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyhow, this is again one of these pointless discussions. a) this is not the AmigaOs development forum, b) I'm not an AmigaOs developer, c) the ratio between "investment of time" is no useful ratio to the result (saving less than 1K of chip RAM on some systems). expansion, in particular, is very hard to debug because it is so early in bootstrapping the system, and the chance for breaking anything for saving so little RAM is quite high. If there is any advice to give then that: "By all means, do not touch expansion without really good reason", and this is not even a mediocre reason. It is close to "no reason at all". |
||||
09 April 2024, 12:24 | #44 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 2,029
|
Sorry, but this long can be -1. It will break nothing.
For old programs it can show wrong size and nothing else. Even for now exist many old Amiga programs which can not be installed on newest HD . Because partition is greater than 2GB and for old programs this is NO FREE SPACE on disk. And simple You forget that for handling files greater than 4GB, new file system is necessary too. Then new version of Amiga OS and new kick . Everything can be done. |
09 April 2024, 12:38 | #45 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 2,029
|
And last thing.
You know how many old Amiga programs crashes (or doesnt works correctly), if filename is longer than 31 signs? And what? Amiga users very often break this limit, and many programs is crashed. Amiga users learned what can be done with old programs and what can not be done. Same for file sizes. Last edited by Don_Adan; 09 April 2024 at 12:46. |
09 April 2024, 12:40 | #46 |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,351
|
|
09 April 2024, 14:28 | #47 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,302
|
How do you know? I don't. It is a negative file size. Whatever that will mean to some programs.
You seem to assume that this size is just used for display purposes, but that might be wrong. It could be used to estimate the amount of buffering required to copy a file, just to give one example - and that could be outright wrong. It could be outright confusing - -1 divided by the block size, well, probably rounded up - zero buffers required - boom. But not everything can be done without breaking something. That is a design "based on assumptions", but whether that may be true or not ... who knows. I do not claim that I would know. |
09 April 2024, 14:33 | #48 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,302
|
Quote:
The limit is actually 30 characters, and personally never run into a particular problem with 30 characters. Volume, assign and device names are still limited to 30 characters. The limit is actually per component, the maximum path lenth is actually 255 characters. |
|
09 April 2024, 14:53 | #49 | ||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,351
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
09 April 2024, 15:13 | #50 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,302
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are many possible ideas how to resolve such problems. One option is to encode the maximum LONG integer (0x7fffffff) and use that as indicator. Or use -1 as indicator. Or skip over such files when iterating over a directory. Or throwing an error in case such a file is examined with the old API (which is probably the most conservative approach avoiding too much breakage). There are many possible approaches, each with drawbacks and advantages. I'm not happy with "shoot first" solutions. Sure. |
|||
09 April 2024, 15:31 | #51 | |||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,351
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
09 April 2024, 15:53 | #52 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,302
|
It is too late to fix it. Software was designed/compiled with the header in place. If you just replace LONG by ULONG, you do not "unbreak" such software magically. Again, if this would be a vivid platform, you would hunt down authors and tell "fix this!" but we don't have that luxury.
|
09 April 2024, 16:16 | #53 | |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,351
|
Quote:
|
|
09 April 2024, 16:26 | #54 | ||
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 60
Posts: 846
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, if you have a system with a lot of Expansions installed it could use more than 1 KB of RAM. Last edited by SpeedGeek; 09 April 2024 at 16:33. |
||
09 April 2024, 16:30 | #55 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,302
|
Quote:
|
|
09 April 2024, 16:43 | #56 |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 60
Posts: 846
|
MEMF_LOCAL is typically configured by expansion.library. So, not available for Expansion base as MEMF_PUBLIC. IIRC Ranger-mem is configed by exec.library so it would available, but I don't remember if it was assigned a higher priority then MEMF_CHIP?
|
09 April 2024, 16:54 | #57 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,302
|
Sure, it is.
|
09 April 2024, 16:54 | #58 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Lahti / Finland
Age: 52
Posts: 452
|
Quote:
|
|
09 April 2024, 19:49 | #59 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 2,029
|
Quote:
It has over 60 signs limit, if I remember right. Like mentioned meynaf it can crash some old programs, because only 30 bytes for names was reserved for file name. Other old programs (not crashed) only readed max 30 signs. And You can see something like this "file not found" or "cant load file". MP3 files very often has very long file names, over 30 signs. Then really -1 value as file length, can be only very small problem. If it can be problem. Files greater than 2GB can be useful mostly for images (DVD, HD etc) or for movie (mostly uncompressed, light compressed etc). |
|
09 April 2024, 20:36 | #60 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Norway
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
In this case, I guess "FastExec" is this one? : https://aminet.net/package/util/boot/FastExec30 Can you please elaborate about "Not enabling the MMU on the 030 (with a fairly complicated config) ? Or is this just a matter of removing mmu.library and the 68k-libs from LIBS: ? And of course any MuTools from startup. EDIT: Removed mmu.library and I tried the Blizkick approach again: Code:
C:Blizkick devs:kick32 QUIET C:FastExec FASTSSP FASTEXP Second boot, it will boot to workbench, but residentspeed tells me that exec.library and expansion.library is still in chipram. On third reboot, everything is in place. I could add a 'REBOOT' to the FastExec command, but did you ever achieve to do this with only one reboot? Last edited by Firestone; 09 April 2024 at 23:00. Reason: FastExec parameter was "FASTSSP", not "FASTVBR" |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Slow performance with AmigaOS 3.1.4 in WinUAE 4.2.1 | matsp888 | support.WinUAE | 15 | 13 January 2020 03:15 |
Accurate performance? | epoxxy | support.WinUAE | 1 | 25 October 2015 14:22 |
Getting more performance out of my A1200 | Devlin | support.Hardware | 4 | 18 December 2013 18:17 |
PSPUAE Performance | tonyyeb | support.OtherUAE | 73 | 27 January 2011 16:45 |
How do I get the best WB performance? | Rabbit80 | support.Apps | 27 | 01 July 2009 11:29 |
|
|