search

PDP-10 / klh10

Community maintained version of Kenneth L. Harrenstien's PDP-10 emulator.
Other
60 stars 8 forks source link

Merge changes from Rich Alderson. #15

Closed larsbrinkhoff closed 7 years ago

larsbrinkhoff commented 7 years ago

I merged the changes from Rich and resolved the conflicts. This is the result.

I have not considered what, if anything, is useful. I can revise this pull request based on feed back.

brouhaha commented 7 years ago

Most of it looks fine to me, but I think the replacement of $(.TARGETS) in a makefile with an explicit list of targets might be undesirable. However, I haven't studied the makefiles enough to be sure. Maybe it's worth asking Rich why he changed that.

larsbrinkhoff commented 7 years ago

Note that old/src/Mk-fbppc.mk also has an explicit list. Are the files in "old" used at all?

brouhaha commented 7 years ago

I have no idea whether the files in "old" are used, but if they're not, there's no point in merging changes to them.

Rhialto commented 7 years ago

No, the files in "old" are not used any more. I kept them only for reference, mainly for the different options there are for building the different models.

Removing the dvlites.o module from the KS models can be done now as well, without further changes. Back when these patches were made, the #ifdefs checking KLH10_DEV_LITES had to be moved a bit to exclude code related to that more thoroughly. You will see for example that the patch to klh10.c now supplies fc_lights(struct cmd_s *cm) with a double set of #ifdefs.

In kn10pag.c there is an exclusion of some header files and a call (to that doubly-guarded function). The dvlites.h header file has its internal guard so it can always be included. The other two header files are needed in any case, because clang complains about implicit function declarations.

In osdsup.c, there is the constant IPC_PRIVATE which I looked at before, and concluded that it was used incorrectly at that location.

I can either simply remove the lites object file from the makefile and consider the changes merged. Or you could remove the duplicated KLH10_DEV_LITES guard, choosing the "outer" or "more thorough" exclusion, and restore the include files, and make that into a new pull request.

ETA: I meant "remove all duplicated guards, there may be more that I didn't notice".

larsbrinkhoff commented 7 years ago

@Rhialto Can you post line-by-line comments indicating what changes you want?

larsbrinkhoff commented 7 years ago

Ok, that should be it, I think.