How is OS4 ?

[utri007]

I allways find irritating how MorpOS guys allways attack every OS4 thread, even when it is purely OS4 here in amiga.org

OS4 hobbyits doesn't do that for MorphOS threads, I think that is safe to say that OS4 guys have generally betters manners.

It is allso safe to say, that generally that OS4 users aren't intrested about MorphOS , when MorphS boys and girls seems to be quite intersted about OS4 and I think that tells quite lot about MorphOS.

Interested because they read every single thread about OS4

[redrumloa]

I allways find irritating how MorpOS guys allways attack every OS4 thread, even when it is purely OS4 here in amiga.org

Since when has it been purely OS4 on Amiga.org? That is not in the TOS, not Wayne's intention and AFAIK not the new owner's intention.

[Fats]

Not every shared library can be implemented using old style shared libraries. Consider libstdc++.so, for example.

Why not ? C++ function names are mangled and after that can be handled as C functions are handled now in amiga shared library. It's true that no compiler or other tool support exist ATM to do it.
Virtual methods are handled by a vtable and by the class constructor(s). The constructor with mangled name can be part of the shared library.

greets,
Staf.

[Fab]

I allways find irritating how MorpOS guys allways attack every OS4 thread, even when it is purely OS4 here in amiga.org

OS4 hobbyits doesn't do that for MorphOS threads, I think that is safe to say that OS4 guys have generally betters manners.

It is allso safe to say, that generally that OS4 users aren't intrested about MorphOS , when MorphS boys and girls seems to be quite intersted and I think that tells quite lot about MorphOS

If good manners of these OS4 users consist in answering that there's only OS4 as successor of the Amiga to the nostalgic people who come back to the scene, and happily forgetting any mention to AROS or MorphOS, then, yes, they have very good manners.

When a "newcomer" asks me the state of the amiga world today, i always give the 3 alternatives. Ignoring blindly the other solutions is just narrow-minded.

[the_leander]

I allways find irritating how MorpOS guys allways attack every OS4 thread, even when it is purely OS4 here in amiga.org

As Red says: Since when, exactly?

The rest is covered quite nicely by Fab I think.

[Karlos]

Why not ? C++ function names are mangled and after that can be handled as C functions are handled now in amiga shared library.

There's slightly more to C++ linkage than name mangling...

How, using nothing but a jsr style jump table library vector do you propose to enforce exception specifiers, for example? If a virtual function in your application throws an exception from within a library call (perfectly possible under the current libstdc++), is the amigaos shared library implementation expected to unwind the stack and properly invoke destructors for everything?

I'm not saying it's impossible to achieve but in the end, your library would likely end up deviating from amigaos shared library norms in order to offer the required features expected of the C++ standard library. And if you are going to deviate from the norm, then why bother? Static linking has no such problem. And really, that's all .so files do, except actual linking is deferred until runtime.

It's true that no compiler or other tool support exist ATM to do it.

This answers your own question and it's unlikely to change as long as gcc remains the compiler of choice.

Virtual methods are handled by a vtable and by the class constructor(s). The constructor with mangled name can be part of the shared library.

greets,
Staf.

There's more than just the vtables and even the stuff above to worry about. Templating and RTTI present other interesting problems as does thread concurrency. The latter isn't a problem for amiga libraries but remember the STL was not designed with concurrency in mind. GCC has gotten around this on platforms like linux by using a posix thread model in the compiler. In the end, you wouldn't just be creating the shared library, you'd have to reimplement the entire entire STL it provides as well.

So, for your suggestion to work, you need to first build a new compiler and then implement your own complete runtime and STL for it. It isn't exactly a cakewalk. Who is going to bother?

On the other hand, you can take an already tried and tested C++ standard library and statically link it to your application. Which is fine. However, with .so files you can defer that until runtime.

[itix]

@utri007

Or maybe OS4 users are shy and comment only OS4 threads?

[Karlos]

As Red says: Since when, exactly?

The rest is covered quite nicely by Fab I think.

I think he meant when a thread is solely about OS4, not the forum.

[itix]

@karlos

On the other hand, you can take an already tried and tested C++ standard library and statically link it to your application. Which is fine. However, with .so files you can defer that until runtime.

Which saves disk space (precious resource these days ;-)) but apparently on Amiga it is not possible make shared objects shared.

Concurrency obviously is not problem on Amiga. Exceptions could probably work with some stub code. After all C++ libraries are always more or less compiler specific.

But tools to extract manged C++ names are missing indeed. Maybe I should look into it some day...

[the_leander]

I think he meant when a thread is solely about OS4, not the forum.

If he cannot say what he means, how can he mean what he says?

[Karlos]

@karlos
Which saves disk space (precious resource these days ;-))

I was thinking more of the benefits of being able to change .so files independently of the applications that use them.

Before anybody starts, the current implementation has been designed to allow linkage against different versions of a .so provided all of the symbols that the originally linked version provided still exist (older gcc implementations didn't do this very well and the whole shebang was reworked).

So, other than saving disk space, you also get to be able to replace your regular libvorbis.so with an altivec tuned one perhaps. Or at least that's the theory.

but apparently on Amiga it is not possible make shared objects shared.

The current OS4 shared object implementation limitation is that .so files are not opened and shared in memory the way .library files are. Whether that remains the case in future versions remains to be seen. From a memory usage perspective, you've lost nothing compared to static linking in that regard.

Concurrency obviously is not problem on Amiga. Exceptions could probably work with some stub code. After all C++ libraries are always more or less compiler specific.

What I meant was that the C++ standard library is not designed with concurrency in mind because threading is not part of the C++ standard (yet). Of course, C++ is used in multithreaded systems so platform specific implementation of the library are are designed to be thread safe. The norm for GCC is to assume posix compliant threads.

But tools to extract manged C++ names are missing indeed. Maybe I should look into it some day...

[Karlos]

If he cannot say what he means, how can he mean what he says?

English might not be his first language? *shrug* As a quasi-geordie, I can almost sympathise.

[Tomas]

I allways find irritating how MorpOS guys allways attack every OS4 thread, even when it is purely OS4 here in amiga.org

OS4 hobbyits doesn't do that for MorphOS threads, I think that is safe to say that OS4 guys have generally betters manners.

It is allso safe to say, that generally that OS4 users aren't intrested about MorphOS , when MorphS boys and girls seems to be quite intersted about OS4 and I think that tells quite lot about MorphOS.

Interested because they read every single thread about OS4

I guess you mean thread? Because this forum has been for all amiga and alternative amiga platforms for ages now.

But yeah i find it irritating as well, but i guess people who cheer for the "underdog" often act like that.
I have yet to see OS4 users posting in MOS threads just to spread FUD about the platform.

[TheBilgeRat]

"Arch is great!  It will install on any 64 bit architecture based on the highly dominant and superoir Intel/AMD processor lines, and also supports the 32 bit Intel processors back to 486.  It supports many wireless cards as well as having a proper TCP/IP stack.  The best thing about Arch is that it runs all your classic Amiga applications blazingly fast with e-uae or winUAE under wine or virtualbox.  It also has the latest and greatest everything the linux world has to offer as well as being supported by a community larger than all the classic, morphOS, and OS4, Aros, Haiku people put together.  You can put it on any name brand pc computer."

The sad thing is that I post this with sarcasm in mind, but the simple truth is that Arch or any flavor of Linux is a bazillion times better than any proprietary operating system hands down with the exception of Windows.  Linux is better than MorphOS and OS4.  ANd it's free.  FREE.  I state this because I am absolutely amazed by the stupidity spit out by both camps screaming about their Toy OS.  Hey, I love minidiscs.  They are DEAD TECH.  Do I wish they had won?  Yes.  Do I think they'll make a comeback?  No.  Is it cool that MorphOS runs on unsupported used Mac computers?  Yes!  Is it cool that OS4 runs on custom build small run hobbyist computers?  Yes!  Would I buy ANY of them thinking "This is it!  My favorite '80s era computer is back!"?  Hell no.  Hands down.  As far as the hardware?  Look at HP:

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/12454-12454-296719-307907-4050865-3718645.html

I spent 2400 dollars on a Dell XPS laptop a few years ago.  It was a great laptop at the time.  Now with the same money I can buy an HP that has direct coupling of the 12 DDR3 memory slots to the processor with the potential of 192GB of DDR3 memory.  192GB!  You can run every OS ever made in virtualspaces...twice if you're bored; house every piece of software ever written for any of them, and run them faster, better and more stable than they ever ran on their original computers.

We do Amigas as a hobby, and as a love for something intangible from our youth.  They are our "Rosebuds".  So please.  STFU.  We get that you like flavor X over flavor Y.  But iof someone is going to lay down money on a machine they want to hear the cool stuff they can do with that machine, not take the pepsi challenge.

[Methuselas]

Guys, this whole Red VS. Blue VS. Grey really needs to stop. Seriously. It's giving me a headache.

Here, let me offer this as a peace offering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6y71x3tSY

[Jambalah]

We do Amigas as a hobby, and as a love for something intangible from our youth. They are our "Rosebuds". So please. STFU. We get that you like flavor X over flavor Y. But iof someone is going to lay down money on a machine they want to hear the cool stuff they can do with that machine, not take the pepsi challenge.

+1 Absolutely agree

@Methuselas: nice video! Thanks!!