Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
BST on macOS Sierra? — Parallax Forums

BST on macOS Sierra?

Has anyone been able to get BST to work under macOS Sierra? I just tried launching it and got a message saying it "quit unexpectedly".

Comments

  • No. I don't even get the message.
  • BST and bstc its command-line compiler both get segmentation fault (11) on MacOS Sierra. Not surprising that as Apple shores-up possible security issues and removes APIs and system functions with each new major OS upgrade, some 3rd party apps will implode. Since BST sources are not available, I'm afraid that BST's run on MacOS has ended for users that upgrade their systems. And since for any specific release, a higher percentage of Mac users upgrade versus Windows users, this will be a common problem amongst Mac users.
    Segmentation Fault:
    
    In computing, a segmentation fault (often shortened to segfault) or access violation is a fault raised by hardware with memory protection, notifying an operating system (OS) about a memory access violation; on x86 computers this is a form of general protection fault.
    

    And since PropellerIDE comes with bstc installed as its default Spin compiler, those IDE users will also feel the pinch.

    BTW: There's not a lot of good information in the attached crash report to identify the specific reason for the segmentation fault...

    dgately
  • Why does PropellerIDE use bstc instead of OpenSpin?
  • dgatelydgately Posts: 1,630
    edited 2016-10-18 17:22
    David Betz wrote: »
    Why does PropellerIDE use bstc instead of OpenSpin?

    Brett could answer this better, but I think it may have something to do with PropellerIDE being able to compile all of the Spin code that Propeller Tool does and bstc 'may be' the only other Spin compiler, that runs on all systems and that handles @@@... I always switch to OpenSpin as my preferred compiler.

    That's just my understanding, which could be off.

    dgately
  • dgately wrote: »
    David Betz wrote: »
    Why does PropellerIDE use bstc instead of OpenSpin?

    Brett could answer this better, but I think it may have something to do with PropellerIDE being able to compile all of the Spin code that Propeller Tool does and bstc 'may be' the only other Spin compiler, that runs on all systems and that handles @@@... I always switch to OpenSpin as my preferred compiler.

    That's just my understanding, which could be off.

    dgately
    Using bstc seems like a step backwards to me and now that bstc won't run under macOS Sierra, it's a fatal backwards step.

  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    It's an inevitable fact of life that programs supplied only as binary executables will start to fail as the systems they run on change over time.

    And then there is no way to fix them if the original developer is not on the scene anymore.

    I think BST and BSTC are brilliant. But without BradC fixing things all the time it's a dead end.

    If the @@@ madness is important it should find it's way into OpenSpin.

  • The "madness" can be stopped very easily, just remove PropBasic from PropellerIDE, and use OpenSpin, or the PropBasic fans could get together and pay Bean to rewrite PropBasic to be able to run using OpenSpin. Or, somebody goes ahead and adds the @@@ support to OpenSpin. Come on you professional programmers, this is open source realm. :-)

    Ray
  • Rsadeika wrote: »
    The "madness" can be stopped very easily, just remove PropBasic from PropellerIDE, and use OpenSpin, or the PropBasic fans could get together and pay Bean to rewrite PropBasic to be able to run using OpenSpin. Or, somebody goes ahead and adds the @@@ support to OpenSpin. Come on you professional programmers, this is open source realm. :-)

    Ray

    I'm imagining Brett posting in this thread "sorry guys, jk! I removed PropBasic support." That will go over well! :D
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    I'm confused. The @@@ madness is a Spin language thing. What has PropBasic, a totally different language, got to do with it?

    Actually, what has PropellerIDE got to do with it? That's just an editor and loader. Right?
  • Heater. wrote: »
    I'm confused. The @@@ madness is a Spin language thing. What has PropBasic, a totally different language, got to do with it?

    Actually, what has PropellerIDE got to do with it? That's just an editor and loader. Right?

    PropBasic's kernel uses @@@ I think. And propelleride ships with bstc and is non configurable.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Hmm...so PropBasic depends on Spin.

    And a specific version of Spin that supports @@@

    As in not Spin at all. Because Spin is defined by the Propeller Tool. As far as I know. There is no other definition.

    Confusing...
  • If memory serves me right, I think you can run PropBasic with OpenSpin, as long as you do not use LMM or start any new COGs. Not sure when @@@ was added to BST, but ...

    Ray
  • pmrobertpmrobert Posts: 673
    edited 2016-10-19 00:31
    Homespun compiles PropBasic PASM just fine. Paging mpark!
    https://github.com/rosco-pc/propeller-wiki/wiki/Homespun-Spin-Compiler
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Build you own Homespun from original sources. On my repository here https://github.com/ZiCog/HomeSpun

  • Heater. wrote: »
    Build you own Homespun from original sources. On my repository here https://github.com/ZiCog/HomeSpun
    ...even builds fine in Monodevelop on Debian...
    \o/
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Even builds fine using mono on the Raspberry Pi (Raspbian at least)
  • And Mac OS10.11 El Capitan? Does bst/bstc/bstl run ok on that one? I have Macs running OS10.6.8 Snow Leopard and OS10.9 Mavericks and am a cautious adopter.
  • dgatelydgately Posts: 1,630
    edited 2016-10-19 18:58
    DavidZemon wrote: »
    Heater. wrote: »
    And propelleride ships with bstc and is non configurable.

    PropellerIDE Version 0.38.5 does allow re-confguration of the Spin compiler to openspin (not sure if openspin is included in the installation process, but it definitely can be added by the user).

    IDEOptions.png

    dgately
    627 x 496 - 69K
  • Oh that's pretty cool :) thanks for sharing
Sign In or Register to comment.