July 2025 - Oberon - mailman3.inf.ethz.ch

Re: [Oberon] Export of Oberon Mail.SendCmd().
by Joerg 30 Oct '26

30 Oct '26

Generally, re-using code instead of copying is a good approach. If you do so, then the whole code of Mail is imported in News. Possible but perhaps there is even a better approach to re-use code. What about this: try to separate all common code in an own module (e.g call it Communication.Mod or MsgBase.Mod or Utilities.Mod or so) and import this new module in Mail and in News. br Jörg > Am 14.06.2023 um 19:53 schrieb peter(a)easthope.ca: > > Hello again, > > Several procedures in Mail are used in Oberon News. Rg.: > Mail.ParseContent(), Mail.DecodeMessage() & Mail.GetSetting(). > > Is export of SendCmd() and use in News objectionable? > Ie. in Mail, change PROCEDURE SendCmd(...) to PROCEDURE SendCmd*(...). > > Thanks, ... P. > > - > mobile: +1 778 951 5147 > VoIP: +1 604 670 0140 > > -- > Oberon(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems > https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon

1 0

[SPAM | WERBUNG] Is there an Oberon System 3 or 4 version known to work on modern Linux kernels?
by Rochus Keller 23 Aug '25

23 Aug '25

I downloaded and tried all Linux x86 versions of the original Oberon Systems 3 and 4 I found and tried to run them on Debian Bookworm, but I get nothing but segfaults. Does anyone have a version which was built with and includes a OP2 lineage compiler, and which runs on current Linux kernels? Thanks R.K.

3 6

Re: [Oberon] Is there an Oberon System 3 or 4 version known to work on modern Linux kernels? (Michael Schierl)
by Mike McGaw 25 Jul '25

25 Jul '25

Michael Schierl makes good points, here. After all, we are comparing two different strands of work, one of which involved a handful of persons (students) for a relatively small amount of time, leading to a compiler whose source is measured in a few thousand lines, and the other, against the bleeding edge C-based strand, which has consumed man-years (excuse me, person-years) by the hundreds if not thousands, and for which the source package certainly must be closing in on a number >= 100K lines by now. All in all, OP2 or Oberon90 as it is being called in this thread, holds up rather well, it seems to me, in this comparison. Speed of code execution, is one thing, and today, we can choose CPUs to suit our performance requirements to offset what the compiler may do. I would guess that the OP2/Oberon90 compiler, on today's platforms, fairly well rips through a larger compile job (compile itself, for example), and that the C-based strands still take much longer (but gratefully not quite the same go-for-a-coffee compile experience common for 1990's C compilers running on the same hardware vintage). The exercise that Rochus Keller is doing is quite interesting never-the-less, as it sheds light on how things have evolved. -Mike On Friday, July 25, 2025 at 06:00:07 AM EDT, <oberon-request(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch> wrote: Send Oberon mailing list submissions to oberon(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to oberon-request(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch You can reach the person managing the list at oberon-owner(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Oberon digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [SPAM] [SPAM | WERBUNG] Re: Is there an Oberon System 3 or 4 version known to work on modern Linux kernels? (Michael Schierl) 2. Re: Is there an Oberon System3 or 4 version known to work on modern Linux kernels? (Rochus Keller) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 23:28:02 +0200 From: Michael Schierl <schierlm(a)gmx.de> To: oberon(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [Oberon] [SPAM] [SPAM | WERBUNG] Re: Is there an Oberon System 3 or 4 version known to work on modern Linux kernels? Message-ID: <6691c104-48bb-464a-a287-ba2376580200(a)gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Hello Rochus, Am 24.07.2025 um 02:19 schrieb Rochus Keller: > > In case anyone is interested, I migrated a subset of the Are-we-fast-yet benchmark suite to Oberon 90 > and run it on the Oberon System V4 release 1.7 x86 on two different machines and Linux versions. > > The summary can be found at github.com/rochus-keller/Are-we-fast-yet/blob/main/Oberon90/Results/Summary… > It compares the Oberon with the C performance with different optimization levels. That does not surprise me at all. More interesting would be using a "period correct" gcc version (i.e. something created at the same time as the Oberon compiler, more like gcc2 than gcc12). Or at least limit it to the instruction set emitted by the Oberon compiler (I assume it is equivalent to -march=i386). Modern gcc versions usually either target MMX or even AVX and this makes a huge difference when unrolling loops with maths in them. And on the other hand, when you want to see what an optimizing compiler can do on your machine, use "-march=native -mtune=native" to generate code that uses the exact instruction set of the machine you are compiling on (Spoiler: Probably not much difference. However, it will *decrease* the gap between 32-bit and 64-bit as the default 32-bit target is something like Pentium2 and the default 64-bit target is quite a bit newer). Regards, Michael ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:21:38 +0200 From: Rochus Keller <me(a)rochus-keller.ch> To: oberon(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [Oberon] Is there an Oberon System3 or 4 version known to work on modern Linux kernels? Message-ID: <zJcjGYtPBl91XcdXGaH6eg@hld> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 @ Michael Schierl Thanks for the feedback. I didn't look at the details of the OP2 code generator, just at the modification history. The version included with the Oberon System V4 in use is not younger than 1997, and the modification date of the source files is 2004. The Pentium Pro (i686) appeared in 1995. Both GCC versions I used default to i686, so I left the architecture as is. Unfortunately I don't have "period correct" GCC versions, but I think it is fair to assume that at least the -O0 version could be expected to have generated code with similar performance as todays versions. To be on the safe side, I re-run the benchmarks on the EliteBook with GCC 4.8.2 with explicit "-march=i486 -mno-mmx" options. The comments in the Oberon source code state "code generator for Intel i386, i387/ i486", so I assume that -march=i486 is a fair choice (-mno-mmx is redundant when using -march=i486). I added the results to a new sheet in the file "Results Mint Rebecca HP EliteBook 2530p.ods". As you can see, the results are pretty much the same. Maybe NBody would have rendered a bigger difference, but it doesn't work so far, and I didn't use it. Best regards R.K. ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer -- Oberon(a)lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon ------------------------------ End of Oberon Digest, Vol 253, Issue 8 **************************************

1 0

[SPAM | WERBUNG] Looking for the latest MacOberon files (without running an installer), 2nd posting attempt
by Rochus Keller 07 Jul '25

07 Jul '25

5 8