Greetings!
Section 1.1 of the VSI CMS manual suggests that we use "SDL."
Our I64 SDL is from Freeware v80 v2.3-1.
Might a native x86 SDL somehow be available? Any plans? Keeping an I64 system as part of a cross-build environment is severely frowned upon.
Thank you kindly for any thoughts or ideas!
On a tangent (that lead us to look for something more modern) is that v2.3-1 SDL will not build the I64/x86
sys$sysroot:[syshlp.examples.cms]cms$routines.sdl
$ sdl/lang=pascal sys$sysroot:[syshlp.examples.cms]cms$routines.sdl
Error on line 4 column 12: Found reserved-word "constant" when expecting
one of { "module" end-of-file }
But I don't think that's fodder for a problem report...
\john
SDL - Modern or x86?
-
johnharney
Topic author - Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2023 2:45 pm
- Reputation: 0
- Status: Offline
Re: SDL - Modern or x86?
John! Send me mail sometime!
Yes, we plan in putting up public versions of things like SDL and BLISS. I'm close to having a native BLISS kit ready. We're actively working on building SDL now. It is mostly in C++ and needed the native C++ compiler.
John
Yes, we plan in putting up public versions of things like SDL and BLISS. I'm close to having a native BLISS kit ready. We're actively working on building SDL now. It is mostly in C++ and needed the native C++ compiler.
John
Re: SDL - Modern or x86?
We, too, are interested in x86 SDL whenever that becomes a "thing". We have used it for quite some time to create cross-language include files for our large project (C and Fortran), starting on Alpha and then on IA64, and now would be awesome for our x86 porting efforts. -Marc
-
roberbrooks
- VSI Expert
- Contributor
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:48 am
- Reputation: 0
- Status: Offline
Re: SDL - Modern or x86?
John wrote . . .
> On a tangent (that lead us to look for something more modern) is that v2.3-1 SDL will not build the I64/x86
> sys$sysroot:[syshlp.examples.cms]cms$routines.sdl
> $ sdl/lang=pascal sys$sysroot:[syshlp.examples.cms]cms$routines.sdl
> Error on line 4 column 12: Found reserved-word "constant" when expecting
> one of { "module" end-of-file }
That's not an SDL problem; it's a problem with the provided copy of CMS$ROUTINES.SDL.
That's been fixed in a not-yet-released version of CMS. That CMS kit provides a correct copy
of CMS$ROUTINES.SDL and also provides a language-specific copy of CMS$ROUTINES.
-- Rob
> On a tangent (that lead us to look for something more modern) is that v2.3-1 SDL will not build the I64/x86
> sys$sysroot:[syshlp.examples.cms]cms$routines.sdl
> $ sdl/lang=pascal sys$sysroot:[syshlp.examples.cms]cms$routines.sdl
> Error on line 4 column 12: Found reserved-word "constant" when expecting
> one of { "module" end-of-file }
That's not an SDL problem; it's a problem with the provided copy of CMS$ROUTINES.SDL.
That's been fixed in a not-yet-released version of CMS. That CMS kit provides a correct copy
of CMS$ROUTINES.SDL and also provides a language-specific copy of CMS$ROUTINES.
-- Rob
Re: SDL - Modern or x86?
We haven't forgotten about SDL. It is important for us also. SDL is written in C++ and seems to be a mix of good and bad C++ code (insert joke about EVERY C++ program here). It has been a good test of the compiler and RTL. We recently found/fixed a bug in the LIBCXXABI RTL routine dealing with exception handling (a TRY around a call to CLI$PRESENT that signalled an error tripped it up).
John
John