On Feb 15, 1996 at 23:27, Paul Edwards of 3:711/934.9 wrote:

 PE> I have no control over what Watcom does with their compiler.  It
 PE> sounds like they've made it default to packing structures on a
 PE> doubleword instead of a byte.

So fix BTPE to force the structure alignment you want/need and stop complaining.

 PE> Have a look at the comments to see who wrote it - hint, not me.

Disavow blame all you like - you've already claimed that BTPE is *your*
package/product, so *fix* it and stop blaming other people.

 PE> Now go and take a look at the version 7 nodelist processing in MSGED/SQ.
 PE> *I* wrote that, and it DOESN'T rely on structure padding.

So what are you waiting for?  Replace the V7 code in BTPE with the V7 code
in Msgedsq.  You didn't *really* need me to tell you that, surely...

 db>> If you make no such claim, then it's not stuffed.
 PE>
 PE> Yay, the man has a brain.

And you don't?  ;-)

 PE> You will notice that I documented a lot of Watcom bugs too.  How's that
 PE> straw that you're clutching at looking now?

You've documented *zero* 10.5-specific bugs.  Your straw.  Fix your bug and
stop complaining.

 PE> I don't have that problem, David.  I know BTPE isn't stuffed, I
 PE> use it daily.

Bill has used numerous models of USR modems and revisions of USR EPROMs and
hasn't encountered your USR modem bug.  Your point?  Your face, egg and
straw.

 db>> pretty protective of BTPE having no bugs.
 PE>
 PE> Let's see you back up that lie with a quote.

"I know BTPE isn't stuffed, I use it daily."  I've said BTPE has
at least one bug, in relation to starting up without a "bossnode"
entry or somesuch;  I've also said that because of that one bug, I deem
BTPE to be stuffed.  Your quoted reply is that BTPE is not stuffed, and
therefore has no such bug.  Not *any* bug, but not *that* bug.  If you've
now flipped your story and claim that BTPE *does* have this bug, then you
agree (either explicitly or in principle, it matters not which) that BTPE
is stuffed.

 PE> I am more than happy to fix it.  Since I don't have Watcom 10.5
 PE> available, I will need you to help on that.  For starters, find
 PE> out what the default on structure padding is.

When I get a chance, I'll dig up this information for you.

 PE> If they have changed the default, then the makefile will need to be
 PE> modified to force no structure padding.

It should be possible to change it *anyway*, since it won't affect the
defaults on 10.0.

 PE> If they have vastly changed the options, it may require another makefile.
 PE> Hopefully the one makefile will suffice.

I compiled with the 10.0 makefile included, and used the defaults in the
makefile;  therefore you shouldn't need to change much.  And no, the
command line parameters haven't changed that much.

 PE>> It's a different sort of product then...
 db>> It's still BinkleyTerm.  Period.  Keep wiping that egg off your face.
 PE> Not period by any stretch of the imagination.

Absolutely;  not your product, not your definition.  Keep wiping that egg
off your face.

 PE> Do you really think that if BT 2.60 was released without source code
 PE> that everyone would chuck out their 2.50 version of Binkley?

Your turn to provide proof of me saying or thinking that;  no, I *know*
that not everyone would ditch their old versions of Bink (heck, some sites
still carry 2.40 files).  The fact is, however, *many* people would upgrade
from 2.59 to 2.60, source or no source.

 PE> It was important enough for you to mention it, as a reason for
 PE> not going to a source code version.

I mentioned it as *a* feature, since it was the first thing that came to
mind.  You still haven't *proved* that I've ever considered it to be an
"all-important" feature.

 PE> If that doesn't signify importance, then I'm the pope.

Your fascination with religion is encouraging - but is it merely a
diversionary tactic, like Paul Keating and Le Republique?

 PE> Of course not.  EMSI, fax and Hydra combined...

...and then some...

 PE> ...are what's more important than source code.
 PE> Since you have said yourself that you don't use any of those things...

I've said I don't use them often - the features are enabled, as I *have*
said, for whenever the moment so arises that I may need any one of them (or
any other feature, for that matter).  As I said before, it's like the
multitude of modulation standards that modern modems support - you
generally only use one or two of 'em, but the rest of them are there
"just in case".

 PE> then if source code is less important than that, then you wouldn't use
 PE> source code either?

Source is used to build a binary - once per change (or set thereof);  each
binary is used multiple times;  ergo, the binary is more important
(regardless what the feature list happens to be).  I've said all along,
Paul, that regardless of features, the usage of the product (any product)
is more important to me than having source code (which is a nice side
benefit).

 PE> Well then there's nothing more to discuss really, is there?

Fine.

    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---