Status:  U
Return-Path: <coco-bounces@maltedmedia.com>
Received: from albert.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([207.69.200.152])
	by mdl-gnash.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP id 1qpmAK3fM3Nl3710; Wed, 25 May 2011 18:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from five.pairlist.net ([216.92.1.121])
	by albert.mail.atl.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1qpmAJ74b3Nl3qU0
	for <sfischer1@mindspring.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 18:30:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from five.pairlist.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by five.pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F257D3BEB7;
	Wed, 25 May 2011 18:30:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: coco@lists5.maltedmedia.com
Delivered-To: coco@five.pairlist.net
Received: from deploy5.pair.com (qs281.pair.com [216.92.131.37])
	by five.pairlist.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 99A0C3BEAA
	for <coco@lists5.maltedmedia.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 18:30:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 79841 invoked by uid 3002); 25 May 2011 22:30:11 -0000
Delivered-To: bathory-maltedmedia:com-coco@maltedmedia.com
Received: (qmail 79837 invoked from network); 25 May 2011 22:30:11 -0000
Received: from localhost.pair.com (HELO qs281.pair.com) (127.0.0.1)
	by localhost.pair.com with SMTP; 25 May 2011 22:30:11 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by qs281.pair.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 33159D4C5A
	for <coco@maltedmedia.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 18:30:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Check-By: qs281.pair.com
X-Spam-Check-By: qs281.pair.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=ham version=3.002005
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Filtered: 2339d97e2cf80afbc3f9b452dd9fb067
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net
	(elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67])
	by qs281.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D51D4C59
	for <coco@maltedmedia.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 18:30:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [66.245.32.27] (helo=Shasta)
	by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <SFischer1@Mindspring.com>) id 1QPMad-0001tn-Hi
	for coco@maltedmedia.com; Wed, 25 May 2011 18:30:08 -0400
Message-ID: <8B6921F7BCC5474D8D861D703C86F79D@Shasta>
From: "Stephen H. Fischer" <SFischer1@Mindspring.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco@maltedmedia.com>
References: <20110524212513.GA6439@brawl.fslf.org><201105250032.09184.gheskett@wdtv.com><A7EEA425FE814B7CA062FA0D5F10BCFD@Shasta><20110525195346.GC14480@brawl.fslf.org>
	<9B6B5EC6-BC3F-4088-B92E-7A47ABA349BA@ocs.net>
In-Reply-To: <9B6B5EC6-BC3F-4088-B92E-7A47ABA349BA@ocs.net>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:28:57 -0700
Organization: A. Nani Mouse Inx.
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18417
X-ELNK-Trace: f86575b20d3bece7b22988ad1c62733440683398e744b8a4a2dc302ecd3497ba68dd66caa2dd81a5350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.245.32.27
Subject: Re: [Coco] cprep19 __FILE__ fix?
X-BeenThere: coco@maltedmedia.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco@maltedmedia.com>
List-Id: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco.maltedmedia.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco>,
	<mailto:coco-request@maltedmedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/coco/>
List-Post: <mailto:coco@maltedmedia.com>
List-Help: <mailto:coco-request@maltedmedia.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco>,
	<mailto:coco-request@maltedmedia.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: coco-bounces@maltedmedia.com
Errors-To: coco-bounces@maltedmedia.com
X-ELNK-Received-Info: spv=0;
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=5; sbrc=-1; sbf=b0; sbw=000;

Hi,

I discovered and downloaded the source for c.comp a few days ago, but I 
cannot find out where it came from now.

It included source for Clib. Both Krieder's and MW versions.

I put it up on my web page:

http://home.mindspring.com/~sfischer1/

I do not see ctime.

Enjoy.

SHF

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Furman" <n6il@ocs.net>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco@maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] cprep19 __FILE__ fix?


>
> On May 25, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Willard Goosey wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:12:09PM -0700, Stephen H. Fischer wrote:
>>> The __DATE__ should (must) be changed to return a date in the 2xxx range 
>>> as
>>> it is "Today's" date.
>>
>> OK, easy enough.  But someone who's good at binary patching and/or
>> disassembling things should fix Krieder's ctime() properly.  And that,
>> btw, would not be me.  I'm not very good with 6x09 assembler.
>
>
> Willard, I looked into this a few months ago.  Off the top of my haead:
>
> 1) I have some source for the Krieder C library, but when I assembled it, 
> it was not exactly the same as binary copies floating around.  This 
> reduces my confidence that the resulting clib after hacking will actually 
> work properly, and makes it difficult to generate a patch that will always 
> work.  The date command returns the correct year.
>
> 2) clib's asctime function had some contribution to the problem but the 
> details escape me ATM.
>
> 3) I took a look at Nitros9's date command and it has some Y2Kish stuff 
> there but it's not clear if it works correctly.  The algorithm there 
> seemed a bit convoluted or worked the problem backwards (from my 
> perspective) for some unknown reason (to optimize it? for 8-bit math 
> apparently?).  The comment in date.asm is from Grandpa Gene:
> *   5      1996/09/25  Gene Heskett
> * Made Y2K compliant.
>
> 4) It appears that Nitros9 keeps a 1-byte year, so this is what one would 
> expect F$Time to return.  According to OS9Defs:
> D.Time         equ       .                   System Time
> D.Year         rmb       1
>
> I'll try to fill in the rest of details from my previous investigation of 
> this issue later this evening.
>
> The result was that to fix UUCPBB (Which reported the year as 19111 in 
> some places and 111 in others) I basically changed any occurrence of 
> '19%d', year to '%d', 1900+year.  This was a hack that doesn't address the 
> real lower level problem.
>


--
Coco mailing list
Coco@maltedmedia.com
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco