Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Today
  3. A reason to not use Github.com is that they are owned by Microsoft since 2018 which have eagerly used underhanded tactics since its creation in 1975 with Embrace-extend-extinguish, consistent bad code quality and was the first company to participate in the government surveillance programs etc. Sourceforge has changed ownership the last time in 2019 to Slashdot media, which doesn't seem to be owned by other giant corporations or institutional investors in turn. As for compilers they can harbor a quite insidious method of compromise discovered in 1974 and with code published in 1984: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)#Compiler_backdoors "A sophisticated form of black box backdoor is a compiler backdoor, where not only is a compiler subverted (to insert a backdoor in some other program, such as a login program), but it is further modified to detect when it is compiling itself and then inserts both the backdoor insertion code (targeting the other program) and the code-modifying self-compilation, like the mechanism through which retroviruses infect their host. This can be done by modifying the source code, and the resulting compromised compiler (object code) can compile the original (unmodified) source code and insert itself: the exploit has been boot-strapped." Though this is likely just a computer virus or falsely flagged as such.
  4. I don't trust Sourceforge. In the past they have been altering installer packages themselves from the projects they hosted, to include bloatware or adware. I don't think they do that anymore nowadays but still. Also it could be that the person mentioned by Stephen , that is doing the uploads onto SF, has their pc compromised and infects the software in the transfer. Who knows. Best to get stuff directly from the source.
  5. I am asking myself the exact same question. When coming from the ouside like me, GitHub looks like s serious place for both amateurs and professionals, Sourceforge looks outdated and not serious with all its ads and what I find a messy layout. But that’s only what I think. Overall I am very grateful for all people who have contributed to this impressing and well developed tool.
  6. I agree that it's probably a false positive, but I can appreciate your unease. Sourceforge has been around a long time, and it hasn't always maintained the greatest reputation with the software packages it hosts, and honestly I'm not too keen about using it these days just as a matter of personal preference. And in the case of cc65, this is reinforced by the fact that CI builds are available on Github, leaving me to wonder who's uploading new builds to Sourceforge, or why they even bother when Github provides a pretty nice method of hosting release builds as-is, with references to the exact git commit that they were generated from. I just don't understand why the cc65 folks need or even want Sourceforge anymore. But I'm not them, and I'm sure they have their own preferences and biases just as I have mine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  7. Ok, that makes sense. But it really makes a simple computer enthusiast like me uncertain. It's not easy to know which warnings to take seriously ...
  8. Great, I downloaded the latest snapshot. It works just fine. Windows Defender has nothing to say. I even scanned the files manually. What is confusing is that when I now manually scan my originally downloaded cc65 files nothing is found.
  9. Probably a bogus virus report. They pick up on false positives all the time. Lots of people use cc65, people that are smart with computers. I'm pretty sure if it had a virus someone would have noticed. Not to mention, it's open source. The only way I can see it having a virus was if your computer was already infected and it injected itself into cc65 after you downloaded it, but you probably would have noticed before now if that was the case.
  10. You certainly may, I am a bit lost concerning this. The checksums are the same but that doesn't mean more than that I really downloaded the compressed file I found on the website? I mean some of the files in the compressed folder can be infected and the checksums are calculated on that basis?
  11. Could be that the maintainers computer is infected. Another harder path of remedy is to use Unix.
  12. The issue would rather be if a large part of code is written to work with a quirk in a emulator which won't work on the real hardware. And not discovering it until it's put to the test. So the idea would be to be able to remote test code and quirks to make sure code actually works with the real thing a few times. And to avoid having to scratch code that can't work with real hardware.
  13. Hmm. I've been using the emulator for the last month or so writing a sprite editor (I'll see if I can paste a picture...) Anyway, the emulator works GREAT! I expect there will be some minor delta with actual hardware, but for the most part, the speed of write / compile / test is vastly more important than 100.00% compliance with "real hardware" (Assuming that real hardware isn't changing as I type this.) Sure, at some point I'll want to get my hands on real hardware... but I can wait. At some point, hardware will surely become available and I can buy one. For me at least, this isn't an issue. Now, if the emulator barely worked, or crashed at all, that would be a different story.
  14. Yesterday
  15. You might also consider grabbing the latest snapshot generated on Github at https://github.com/cc65/cc65/actions/workflows/snapshot-on-push-master.yml At present, that is specifically the following links: (Win32) https://github.com/cc65/cc65/suites/9531935857/artifacts/453016092 (Win64) https://github.com/cc65/cc65/suites/9531935857/artifacts/453016093 You can't get much safer (virus-wise) than that without literally building the source code yourself.
  16. May I suggest you check the hashes of the file you downloaded against what sourceforge claims?
  17. I am getting started with cc65/ca65. I found it on GitHub. There are two releases but they only contain source code. But I found a download link leading to sourceforge.net and I downloaded what I understand is the latest version. I tried compiling a simple c program then suddenly WIndows Defender blocks cc65 and reports this below. I must say I am somewhat puzzled over this. I am not exactly the first one using cc65 in this community and I haven't seen any discussions about the compiler being infected by any virus. Does anyone know where can I download an uninfected version?
  18. Hola fellow Linux Mint user! First, yes... you can copy and paste a BASIC program into the READY prompt, but it needs to all be UPPER CASE, because that's how Commodore Basic rides. Myself, I use the terminal to compile code using ca65 (use "apt install cc65" to install the entire suite of 5602 cross compiler tools.) That gets you the assembler, the C compiler, and the linker. I use the assembler and write code in assembly. Assembly can be daunting, but if you stick with it it gets easier. Matt Heffernan at Slithy Games has a great tutorial series on Commander X-16 programming in assembly on you-tube at I strongly recommend Matt's series, It's really good.
  19. Last week
    I've been playing it over and over again on the emulator (mostly because I almost never win ). Also spent a lot of time searching every single thing but that's a big part of the charm. I'll be the first to order once the full X16 version is available.
  20. For me, I not only need to load code into banks above 10, I also need to save data from banked RAM into files. And of course the kernal uses bank 00 while it is saving, so saving directly from a bank to disk is out. What I've been doing instead is creating a temporary file TEMP.TMP and saving $7000..8FFF in that file. Then for loading I load my 8kb file at 7000 and copy to banked RAM. For saving I copy from banked RAM to 7000 and save the file from there. After the loading or saving, I load TEMP.TMP back at 7000.
  21. Well, FWIW, I cant build the latest from master - did another clean get, another clean build, still the emulator just goes blank on me. Posted a question about it, carrying on with R41, which works for me when I build it myself.
  22. So, I'm trying to build the ROM for the X16 from the master branch (git rev-parse HEAD returns 676f4a5744c236eda448cc024c7819f67e8407f9) I'm building it using WSL on windows, and I believe it builds ok. the size of the ROM is 163840 bytes But when I start the emulator with that ROM, it stays completely blank, just a blue screen, no butterfly logo, no nothing. I can hit Ctrl+R or break into the monitor (F12), but I guess these are emulator functions? I believe my build process is ok, I can build R41 and that works for me. Does anybody else have the same issues? Any hints what I can do apart from running "make"? FWIW, Below are the warnings I get during the build process: Thanks, Erik kernal/drivers/x16/joystick.s(214): Warning: No reference to unnamed label kernal/drivers/x16/joystick.s(217): Warning: No reference to unnamed label kernal/drivers/x16/joystick.s(220): Warning: No reference to unnamed label ld65: Warning: build/x16/cfg/kernal-x16.cfg(78): Segment 'GDRVVEC' does not exist ld65: Warning: build/x16/cfg/kernal-x16.cfg(78): Segment 'PS2' does not exist ld65: Warning: build/x16/cfg/kernal-x16.cfg(78): Segment 'NVRAM' does not exist ld65: Warning: build/x16/cfg/kernal-x16.cfg(78): Segment 'CONSOLE' does not exist INFO: Could not find segment matching 'CLOCK' in module clock, assuming zero offset dos/file.s(134): Warning: No reference to unnamed label dos/file.s(161): Warning: No reference to unnamed label ld65: Warning: Address size mismatch for 'krn_ptr1': Exported from zeropage.o, dos/zeropage.s(7) as 'zeropage', import in file.o, dos/file.s(255) as 'absolute' INFO: unique module name geos_CODE_00F5 did not appear map file modules. We're going to wing it... INFO: we're going to go with geos_CODE_00F6. INFO: Could not find segment matching 'BITMASK1' in module bitmask1, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'BITMASK2' in module bitmask2, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'BITMASK3' in module bitmask3, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'FILES7' in module files7, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'HEADER' in module header, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'HW1A' in module hw1a, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'HW2' in module hw2, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'HW3' in module hw3, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'INIT3' in module init3, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'KEYBOARD2' in module keyboard2, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'MAINLOOP2' in module mainloop, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'MOUSEPTR' in module mouseptr, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'PATTERNS' in module patterns, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'RAMEXP1' in module ramexp1, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'RAMEXP2' in module ramexp2, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'TIME2' in module time2, assuming zero offset INFO: Could not find segment matching 'TOBASIC1' in module tobasic1, assuming zero offset basic/x16additions.s(543): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'rom_bank' basic/code26.s(115): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'ram_bank' basic/code6.s(125): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'r1L' basic/code6.s(111): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'r0H' basic/code6.s(97): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'r0L' basic/code6.s(54): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'r2H' basic/code6.s(42): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'r2L' basic/code6.s(30): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'r1H' ld65: Warning: Address size mismatch for 'command_index_l': Exported from monitor.o, monitor/monitor.s(1392) as 'absolute', import in io.o, monitor/io.s(13) as 'zeropage' ld65: Warning: Address size mismatch for 'command_index_s': Exported from monitor.o, monitor/monitor.s(1394) as 'absolute', import in io.o, monitor/io.s(14) as 'zeropage' ld65: Warning: Address size mismatch for 'mon_fa': Exported from monitor.o, monitor/monitor.s(109) as 'zeropage', import in io.o, monitor/io.s(26) as 'absolute' INFO: unique module name asm_ASMCHARS1_03DF_ASMCHARS2_03E1_MNEMOS1_0006_MNEMOS2_0061_MONITOR_03DF did not appear map file modules. We're going to wing it... INFO: we're going to go with asm_ASMCHARS1_0006_ASMCHARS2_0006_MNEMOS1_0046_MNEMOS2_0061_MONITOR_03DF. src/cx.s(2603): Warning: User warning: SHIM buffer too large. cx_vars.s only needs 21 bytes. ld65: Warning: ../build/x16/cfg/codex-x16.cfg(36): Segment 'CODE' isn't aligned properly; the resulting executable might not be functional. ld65: Warning: cfg/cx-plugin.cfg(17): Segment 'CODE' isn't aligned properly; the resulting executable might not be functional. ld65: Warning: cfg/cx-plugin.cfg(17): Segment 'CODE' isn't aligned properly; the resulting executable might not be functional. src/cx-sym.s(513): Warning: No reference to unnamed label ld65: Warning: cfg/cx-plugin.cfg(17): Segment 'CODE' isn't aligned properly; the resulting executable might not be functional. ld65: Warning: cfg/utest.cfg(16): Segment 'CODE' isn't aligned properly; the resulting executable might not be functional. demo/test.s(489): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'crchi' demo/test.s(488): Warning: Didn't use zeropage addressing for 'crclo' INFO: unique module name test_DEMO_0941 did not appear map file modules. We're going to wing it... INFO: we're going to go with test_DEMO_0942.
  23. Since we're officially in the "Christmas Season", I figured I would keep the BASIC holiday trend going. And... I'm having fun digging through these old magazine "type-in" programs. Same source, next months issue.
  24. maybe if you post here the code developers can integrate it into the latest ROM version.
  25. yeah in my experience the kernal rom always gets padded. Also the master should build just fine and the same as the R41.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please review our Terms of Use