Unofficial AIBB v6.8 patch

[SpeedGeek]

Unofficial AIBB Version 6.8 patch
© SpeedGeek 2021

INTRODUCTION:
This an update to the previous AIBB v6.7 patch. It has
some new code to report the CPU Revision when a 68060
is detected.

FEATURES:
- New code reports CPU revision on 68060 systems
- Runs all original AIBB code on 60000-68040 systems
- 100% PC relative Assembler code
- Patched executable is only 52 bytes larger than v6.7
- Updates version to 6.8

REQUIREMENTS:
- Amiga with 68060 CPU
- AIBB v6.7 "Update" version!
- SAS spatch tool

WARNINGS:
This patch does NOT update AIBB to fully support the
68060 CPU in the way a benchmark program written
specifically for that purpose would do. It does NOT
functionally affect MOST of the limitations of the original
AIBB code except for allowing it to run on 68060 systems.

NOTES:
The CPU Revision is reported in the System Information screen.
This patch can NOT be applied to the older non-update v6.7
version.

[klx300r]

thanks

[gdonner]

Not sure what I'm doing wrong(?), but for the life of me, I can't get the patch to 'take'...

Using Spatch from: http://aminet.net/dev/misc/spatch.lha

AIBB 6.5 from: https://bigbookofamigahardware.com/b...falcon1240.adf (as someone suggested as an alternative to try).

I've also tried http://aminet.net/util/wb/Spatcher1_0.lha and AIBB from http://aminet.net/util/moni/AIBB_65.lha ... all to no avail.

For idiots like me, may I suggest that someone with a gracious spirit post the updated executable to The Zone?

[BLUELiGHT]

If I understand correctly, you need AIBB v6.7 for this patch to be applied.

So you should first update AIBB v6.5 to v6.6, then to v6.7, and finally apply the v6.8 patch in the current thread.

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Yes in fact there is no information about it, I don't understand why these patches are used when many users don't know how to apply them, on Aminet there are GUIs to do it but in many cases they fail or you need an engineer to use them.

[SpeedGeek]

Originally Posted by BLUELiGHT

If I understand correctly, you need AIBB v6.7 for this patch to be applied.

So you should first update AIBB v6.5 to v6.6, then to v6.7, and finally apply the v6.8 patch in the current thread.

Finally, someone who can RTFM and use simple logical steps to solve a problem. Good work!

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

Yes in fact there is no information about it, I don't understand why these patches are used when many users don't know how to apply them, on Aminet there are GUIs to do it but in many cases they fail or you need an engineer to use them.

Unfortunately, the AIBB distribution license makes no exceptions for any user's technical incompetence and likewise the SAS spatch tool makes no exceptions either.

[gdonner]

Let's just say (if you're not used to using it frequently) the Spatch syntax isn't the most user-friendly. "Fiendly" might be more appropriate. lol

[AMIGASYSTEM]

@SpeedGeek

Ok thanks was not directed at you personally, usual Amiga problem always full of obstacles.

You could put in the readme a ready to use script, the "technical" formulas are not good for those who don't know them or can't use them

[BLUELiGHT]

You're probably starting from the hacked 6.5 version of AIBB instead of the original one.

If you follow the original 6.5/6.6 patches threads, you'll see that the correct version was posted in an a1k.org forum thread.

Once you get that executable, you can successfully apply the patches - check you are using the correct commands as per the attached screenshot.

[gdonner]

Thanks BLUELiGHT--what was throwing me off was the tacky Spatch syntax not including those spaces, which are critical for a successful patch.

[Romanujan]

It would be easier if there was only one patch needed - from the last official binary to the target unofficial one (plus always place a warning that Aminet release is not the official binary).

The need to perform the whole chain of patches plus a policy to change the versions retrospectively (releasing fixes without bumping version number, and even posting a new 6.(n) patch, while the 6.(n+1) was already released) is a very confusing mix - you can’t even trust the files you have succesfully created yourself (or the previous patches you have downloaded and placed in your private storage), and everytime you have to re-read previous threads to understand what actually happened.

[SpeedGeek]

Of course, it would be easier if there was only one patch. But the feature updates and the bug fix occurred at different times and things just didn't work out that way.

It was just not worth doing a version change for a simple bug fix, and at least there is some consistency in doing version changes for feature updates only. The problem is not all users will want all the feature updates, but they will want the bug fix for which ever version they prefer.

Unfortunately, there are users posting already patched versions in various locations but they will not always bother to update their postings. However, you can trust the files you create yourself as BLUELiGHT has just demonstrated.

[Romanujan]

Originally Posted by SpeedGeek

It was just not worth doing a version change for a simple bug fix

I can’t believe this. Every released version has to be identifiable - you can’t release version 6.6, afterwards another 6.6, after some time yet another 6.6, and claim everything is OK. This is a terrible, terrible practice, against all the quality standards. Tertiary version numbers, version suffixes, etc., were invented for a reason.

Users who post patched versions do not bother to upgrade, because they have much more interesting things to do than to closely watch the development of a tool which is normally usefull twice a year. If they knew they were posting 6.6.0, and the 6.7.1 patch documentation would imply that it is the 6.6.1 binary which has to be patched, there would be no confusion at all.

[SpeedGeek]

Originally Posted by Romanujan

I can’t believe this. Every released version has to be identifiable - you can’t release version 6.6, afterwards another 6.6, after some time yet another 6.6, and claim everything is OK. This is a terrible, terrible practice, against all the quality standards. Tertiary version numbers, version suffixes, etc., were invented for a reason.

Users who post patched versions do not bother to upgrade, because they have much more interesting things to do than to closely watch the development of a tool which is normally usefull twice a year. If they knew they were posting 6.6.0, and the 6.7.1 patch documentation would imply that it is the 6.6.1 binary which has to be patched, there would be no confusion at all.

You should now find an MD5 checksum posted on both the AIBB v6.6 and v6.7 threads. Regarding the quality standards issue, this is freeware and you don't have to use any of it if you don't like it.

[hexaae]

Thank you very much for this patch! I can finally run AIBB on WinUAE without crashes.

Please, do patches starting from 6.5... it's annoying to pass through 6.6+6.7+... threads and patchings. Why not making a diff from 6.5 directly?
Also a single thread for AIBB unofficial patches would be better than jumping through 3-4 threads...

BTW, on aminet there is also another useful (free) diff tool apart Spatch: http://aminet.net/package/util/cli/WDelta

Is it possible to fix too big numbers (e.g. after a Savage test on WinUAE 060 JIT=ON) trashing UI?

[klx300r]

@ SpeedGeek


v6.8 working great on both my A4000-CS-MKIII and A1200T-TF1260 machines