Ringding wrote on 2024-01-13, 17:48:
Then you did not follow the blog because it specifically mentions that you need to add it.
Ha - looks like I missed it! - thanks! (where do you actually get it)?
I did find the part about adding it to the linker control, but sadly I was
working with a capture of the blog from (way back when) and it's an image
which I couldn't search - Since my 2019 "incident" I have vision problems
and do find it hard to follow the details of such a wordy description.
(Hadn't even checked that the blog still existed util I was verifying the info
I posted here - Just grabbed it all as text so I can search as required).
Fortunately I found the original "Megabuild 6" source tree that I had compiled
"back in the day" - and it still compiled fine under Vc2008
I had previously made only a minor change (".conf" -> ".ini" to avoid having to
access a "long filename" within DosBox when I wanted to read the config (which
isn't 100% reliable).
Now I want to look at making some other minor-fixes which "annoy" me - like:
<tab> doesn't know about ':'
"copy" happlily open destination before source and fails (losing source)
when the are the same file...
-----so: C:\SRC> copy prog.c R:<tab> (to complete from previous copied file)
becomes: C:\SRC> copy prog.c PROG.C
which trashes C:PROG.C
Most of the time I remember to do: ... R:.\<tab>
which does work because '\' IS recognized.
I also wrote my own CP (Copy) which does not allow such a copy to
self - but sometimes it still "bites" me.
RENAME gives no indication when it fails
0x1A not recognized as EOF on a text file
Ctrl-C ineffective in many(most) cases
Allows OPEN/WRITE to a file already open READ
INT 21h/5701h (set timestamp) appears to work (no error) but doesn't change
the file timestamp - this causes me MAJOR problems because most of my backup
/recovery tools use timestamps to determine when a file needs to be copied!
Probably related to above "copy" does not preserve the timestamp!
(so copied files are always newer)
DosBox-X has fixed some (but not all) of these, and I really like/use MB-6
a lot - relatively small (compared to X) and doesn't have much that I don't
want. Now that I've retired - I've got more time to "play" with it.
Still on the fence between fixing what I want in MB6 and just designing my own
full DOS emulator (DVM goes much of the way, but isn't 80x86 which limits to my
own stuff (compiled with DVM Micro-C) - CPU flags can be tricky/slow to emulate
and all screen hardware would also be a major pain ...so I still use MB6 a LOT.
Dave