Dominus wrote:

Who is the official OS X version maintainer?

I think it'sRhoenie.

Much curioser now (starting a new post to not clutter the above post even more).
With both my CVS built and the official 0.73 built CPU usage AND performance drops when I use the pcpbench(mark) and have output set to OpenGL. With surface the benchmark gets 59fps (or 43fps in my built 😀) at about 90% CPU usage. With OpenGL the benchmark gets about 8fps at about 28% CPU usage (and my built 0.3fps at 15% CPU).
Sooo, surface is best on OS X, it seems to me.

I really think the source files are corrupt on sourceforge. Tried on 2 computers using Archiver Utility, Stuffit, TheUnarchiver and something unix in the terminal. Can someone verify this? (the CVS seems to open great though)

Source archive works fine for me, what exactly is the problem? What's the file size exactly?

I just tried with the download of the sourceball of 0.73 and 0.63. Both downloaded fine and when I doubleclicked them in Finder, they both got extracted fine.

Huh, It's fixed now somehow. I swear it didn't work 😮 I even asked someone else to open the files and he also said it gave an error.... I don't know the error anymore because I already trashed to corrupted ones but it was like an infinite loop, first opening the .tar.gz, then there was a .tar and when I opened that I got a .tar.gz file again. Opening it with Archiver Utility works now. Maybe some server issues ? Anyway, now this gives me the possibility to compile the sources again and report back on how the performance is.

I actually don't think the performance will be any better, I never used anything older than 0.72 but I just feel it 😜 .

What if the performance will be better? You guys can't rewrite DOSBox all over again just to make it faster on OS X right? Anyway, I'll test it and post the results soon. (Today or tomorrow)

Did you re-download? As there seems to have been some larger page (server?)
update on sourceforge so maybe downloads were broken in some timeframe.

Yes, I redownloaded them.

Is there a specific SDL I should use in 0.60 & 0.50 or should the newest 1.2.13 do the trick?

Apple ships a modified version of GCC with their Xcode development kit. This one is able to produce binaries that run on both major OSX target platforms (i386 and powerpc).

Although its possible to create a universal binary directly (by adding the compiler switches -arch i386 -arch ppc) I do not recommend it - especially not for SDL and DOSBox.

A better approach is to build a static binary for all different target platforms (with their own optimizations and specialities like Altivec en/disabled) and glue all binaries together in a last step using a tool named lipo. Possible target platforms are: PowerPC G3, G4, G5, i386 and x86_64.

You need to change the SDL configure scripts at some point to be able to produce targets for G3, G4 or G5 as it assumes that you want to build a PowerPC binary for all CPU types. Find the line '$EXTRA_CFLAGS -force_cpusubtype_ALL"' and comment it out.

I described the process on my homepage (http://www.spam-filter.de/bastelstunde) in one of the articles.

rhoenie, did you explained the SDL thing because you knew I got an error with SDL 1.2.13 & DOSBox 0.60 (even when I didn't say I had). Or has it nothing to do with that?

I've previously compiled 0.72, 0.73 & CVS with SDL 1.2.13 but I don't know if I can use it in the older builds ?

Without fixing the SDL configure script you won't be able to create different static binaries for all 3 PowerPC targets and lipo them together in a final stage. The tool will bail out in error telling you that the 3 binaries are of the same platform.

It was just a general hint for those that want to build highly optimized binaries for G3s (no Altivec support), G4s (Altivec support) and G5s (different enhancements on microcode level and bigger caches) that need different compiler settings and configure switches.

Also I can read other peoples minds and already knew that you had trouble with SDL. 😁

Ok, I'll see what it does know. I'll also try to compile UB with adding those switches although you don't recommend it 🤣 . I always tried to compile a UB but I had to do it on an Intel Mac and a PowerPC Mac because I don't know how to cross-compile. Then I lipo'ed them together..

Because you don't recommend it, I guess I'll run into some errors but it's worth the try 😀

Anyway, is there still need to compile a 0.60 version and see the CPU usage or won't it matter after all ? (I'm still going to do it but I'm just wondering)

We should really get a .xcodeproj file for building DOSBox, that would make compiling things easy as pie... -for those who are going to say "then make it" : no I won't because I don't know how and can't read the source files because I can only code AppleScript.

Oh, rhoenie, I also can't find the article where you're talking about, I've checked them all but couldn't find it.