FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Messages
Log in |
Last Visit : never :: 2010-8-01 @ 01:49 am : Now | |||
| FAQ |
Search |
Memberlist |
Usergroups |
|
| Register |
Profile |
Messages |
Log in |
|
| Forum Index :: DOSBox Development :: | |
Universal Binary for OS X?
|
|
|---|---|
Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-17 @ 04:09 pm
|
|
|
eobet Newbie ![[avatar]](images/avatars/195808660742d232b172c48.gif) Joined: 2003-11-14 Posts: 64 Location: Sweden, Kalmar |
I did a quick search and it seems that nobody has mentioned this?
Is it being worked on? I guess (in two weeks time when my Macbook arrives) the fastest solution for me would be to download a compiler for OS X and the DosBox source and create a universal binary myself? |
 
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-18 @ 11:03 pm
|
|
|
neowolf Member ![[avatar]](images/avatars/9824756834315568ad4699.gif) Joined: 2005-08-31 Posts: 115 |
That's the best solution in general for being up to date. Last I checked (and this was just with the dev machines), dosbox compiled fine, you just needed a small patch to get the dynamic core working properly. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-20 @ 05:44 am
|
|
|
linp Newbie  Joined: 2006-03-20 Posts: 2 |
I've played about with this and managed to get DosBox compiled on my Intel iMac - it's definitely a big improvement. Using the current dosbox-0.63 under Rosetta, I can't get CPU settings above 3500 with my favourite old DOS game (Betrayal at Krondor) before reaching 100% CPU (ie. one core). With my personally compiled version, CPU is at 70% of one core, with CPU settings of 20000 - fast enough for that game.
However, although I am a programmer, I am new to Macs, and I could only get this working by modifying the risc_x86.h header - not a good idea even if it hasn't cause me any problems. I am also new to sourceforge (I know, I know, but anywhere I've worked has always been focussed on proprietary software, not OSS). So, I see that there a dynamic core patch on sourceforge, but where do I get it (I can't find it) and is there information on compiling this properly for the Intel iMacs? Edit: Should have looked further - found it. Hmm, it is pretty much what I did ... except I popped esi and edi off in the order they were pushed. |
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-20 @ 08:35 am
|
|
|
eobet Newbie Joined: 2003-11-14 Posts: 64 Location: Sweden, Kalmar |
What error message did you get and what was your fix to make it compile?
(My Macbook won't arrive until 2-3 weeks time, so that's how new I'm at Macs...) |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-20 @ 04:46 pm
|
|
|
linp Newbie Joined: 2006-03-20 Posts: 2 |
Actually, when I look back over the source I see I was wrong about what I did to get it to compile (I did this shortly after I got my iMac about five weeks ago so was working on memory).
I got the message "PIC register '%ebx' clobbered in 'asm'". So I did initially try to do what the patch does (modify risc_x86.h to pushl the registers then popl them back in sequence) but that didn't work. I got the same error. So (I wouldn't recommend this since I'm not really sure what it means to do it), I removed %ebx from one line: Code: register Bit32u tempflags=reg_flags & FMASK_TEST;
__asm__ volatile ( "pushl %%ebp \n" "pushl $(run_return_adress) \n" "pushl %2 \n" "jmp *%3 \n" "run_return_adress: \n" "popl %%ebp \n" :"=a" (retval), "=c" (tempflags) :"r" (tempflags),"r" (code) - :"%edx",%ebx,"%edi","%esi","cc","memory" + :"%edx","%edi","%esi","cc","memory" ); This compiles and /seems/ to work fine, but as far as I'm concerned there are unknown consequences (unknown to me) in doing this. I'm sure someone out there could explain. I haven't had any issues running dosbox either with or without dynamic core, but I may just have not hit any problem code yet. I also haven't got around to packaging dosbox up - I still just run it as an Intel-only binary in my home directory. By the way, before compiling dosbox you'll also have to compile SDL. It wouldn't link until I modified libtool to use g++ instead of gcc. Edit: And I just noticed in your first message you mention "download a compiler". You just need to insert your Mac OS X Installer DVD and install the developer tools. This includes X11, XCode and gcc, so no need to download anything. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-20 @ 06:17 pm
|
|
|
neowolf Member Joined: 2005-08-31 Posts: 115 |
I'd love to help but alas I've just got a PPC Mac mini here. _________________ "Omne ignotum pro magnifico" |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-20 @ 09:06 pm
|
|
|
eobet Newbie Joined: 2003-11-14 Posts: 64 Location: Sweden, Kalmar |
X11? What do I need that diabolical piece of software for?  |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-21 @ 12:20 am
|
|
|
neowolf Member Joined: 2005-08-31 Posts: 115 |
Some people use x11 apps still, especially if they really like'em. However don't be confused, it's not needed at all to compile dosbox for Mac OS X. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-21 @ 08:01 am
|
|
|
eobet Newbie Joined: 2003-11-14 Posts: 64 Location: Sweden, Kalmar |
Ah, thanks for the information. Well, that error is unfortunately quite a bit over my head (I know C++, but skipped the assembly courses). Guess I'll have to wait until someone releases a compiled universal binary. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-3-21 @ 08:18 am
|
|
|
wd DOSBox Author Joined: 2003-12-03 Posts: 9334 |
> So I did initially try to do what the patch does (modify risc_x86.h to pushl
> the registers then popl them back in sequence) Could you try to add push ebx/pop ebx pairs, until something changes? From that sourceforge it sounds like something on the stack needs to be aligned, and adding (maybe 4 pairs) to your current working compile should keep at least the alignment of the stack. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-05 @ 07:10 am
|
|
|
Edgar Newbie Joined: 2004-03-16 Posts: 6 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden |
Anyone compiling a universal 0.65?
I have found two versions of 0.63 for Intel Macs. 1) The CVS build at: http://mac.punknews.org/dosbox.html 2) Dosbox86 from http://lamer0.com/ The CVS build is very unstable, but lamers version is rock solid! Could any of these guys compile 0.65 please? I would do it myself, but I have trouble with the Dynamic Core Patch.  |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-14 @ 11:28 am
|
|
|
eobet Newbie Joined: 2003-11-14 Posts: 64 Location: Sweden, Kalmar |
I just checked lamer0's site, and it says (in quite old news):
Quote: A universal dosbox port with a working dynarec core. My patches for the dynarec core can be found at the official dosbox's sourceforge website.
So why wasn't 0.65 released as a universal binary? |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-14 @ 01:44 pm
|
|
|
DosFreak Freaky Ram Thing ![[avatar]](images/avatars/16129873848c85754bb226.png) Joined: 2002-06-30 Posts: 7362 Location: Your Head |
Because the DosBox devs don't use OSX? _________________ Game Acronym List DosBox CVS Builds DosBox Wish List DosBox FAQ PC Game Compatibility List DOSBox Video Tutorial Quote: I am the Milkman. My milk is delicious
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-14 @ 09:11 pm
|
|
|
neowolf Member Joined: 2005-08-31 Posts: 115 |
Compiling a universal build requires quite a bit of extra work and awareness, a fair bit of which is over my head honestly. I don't even know how to make a build with static libraries so that I can just post it and the person could run it without also installing the same SDL libraries I used! On top of that more than likely the Intel users are going to want it built with the dynamic core turned on which means making two separate builds entirely and then merging them with the tools into one. All theoretically doable but I'm not up for it. If I was I'd probably do it. If you really, really want it done. Either tell me how to do it or better yet, do it yourself.  |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-14 @ 11:06 pm
|
|
|
e1ven Newbie Joined: 2006-04-14 Posts: 1 |
It looks like it may be as easy as passing arch flags to the compiler and linker-
From http://www.codecomments.com/archive242-...72220.html Quote: > Allen Brunson <brunsona@takethisout.newsguy.com> wrote: > > I believe the right way is to pass -arch ppc -arch i386 to the compiler. > My (limited) understanding is that this will produce universal .o files, > and when you go to link you'll get a universal library. Your understanding is correct; that's how it works as long as you pass -arch ppc -arch i386 to the linker as well. Examples of this technique can from other makefile based packages can be found at: http://www.entropy.ch/blog/Software/200...-Tips.html http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2005/12/18/T20_09_25/ There is another way, using the lipo tool to combine binaries manually, but that's a lot more work. Colin _________________ Colin Davis |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-15 @ 02:44 pm
|
|
|
eobet Newbie Joined: 2003-11-14 Posts: 64 Location: Sweden, Kalmar |
Hmm, I wonder if everyone just ignored the quote I pasted? Let me try again:
Quote: A universal dosbox port with a working dynarec core. My patches for the dynarec core can be found at the official dosbox's sourceforge website.
Said by Lamer0 of http://www.lamer0.com/ as was linked above by Edgar (and I've downloaded his compile and I get full speed in Supercars International at 12000 CPU cycles, which is what I used to run on my PC, only here on my Macbook, with dynamic core, that takes about 30-50% of CPU power). |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-15 @ 04:45 pm
|
|
|
neowolf Member Joined: 2005-08-31 Posts: 115 |
And people still listed why there's no universal of .65. No one's made it and submitted it.
I currently build dosbox myself with the dependencies provided by darwinports, which aren't built universal and I've not a clue how to force them to be. (Or if you can) So building a universal would demand I take care of that first. Even then, it'd still be ideal to make two separate builds and like them, that way x86 people are blessed with the dynamic core. Which is what I believe Lamer0 did for his build.  |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-15 @ 04:57 pm
|
|
|
Qbix DOSBox Author ![[avatar]](images/avatars/153919416143252f8e68fd0.gif) Joined: 2002-11-27 Posts: 8229 Location: Fryslan |
eobet. wd doesn't believe the patches are totally correct. (the save of registers deal with allready saved registers).
The discussion then continued between 2 mac debuggers and hasn't reached a final conclusion yet (e.g what the correct patch is) http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.ph...tid=467234 _________________ Water flows down the stream How to ask questions the smart way |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-16 @ 09:17 am
|
|
|
eobet Newbie Joined: 2003-11-14 Posts: 64 Location: Sweden, Kalmar |
Ah, thank you for the information. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Universal Binary for OS X? :: 2006-4-17 @ 03:47 pm
|
|
|
Qbix DOSBox Author Joined: 2002-11-27 Posts: 8229 Location: Fryslan |
http://mac.punknews.org/dosbox
take a look here _________________ Water flows down the stream How to ask questions the smart way |
|
|
|
|
page 1 of 3
|
|
| All times are GMT |
| Moderate |
|---|
| Quick Reply & Options | |
|---|---|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum |
|
2002-2003 zetafleet.dom.