modorganizer VS printf

Use a mod manager – pick either Vortex : https://www.nexusmods.com/about/vortex/ Or MO2 : https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/6194

I'd grab the one from gog-games.to, I can't link directly as that's against the rules. It's compatible with MO2 (Mod Organizer 2) as well as having a version of skse64 (Skyrim Script Extender x64 available for it.

I highly recommend Mod Organizer 2, but Vortex is an acceptable alternative. As a rule of thumb, the more advanced you want to get with your modding, the more strenuously I recommend MO2 as there are some differences in its technical approach that make a bigger and bigger difference as the complexity of your build increases.

Nexus GitHub Discord

I’m not running OBSE by itself. I’m running it alongside Mod Organizer 2. This script will setup MO2 for you and set it so that Steam launches it automatically when you press play. Then, you’ll need to follow this doc to install OBSE alongside MO2. Hopefully that would setup all of your pathing correctly.

MO2 is Mod Organizer 2.

https://github.com/mpaland/printf i think this would work

Seems unlikely. My spot check of the the two vfprintf implementations shows no flow from one to the other, and shows that part of the Cosmopolitan code has an older lineage than nolibc.

The nolibc source has many reference to copyright held by "Willy Tarreau", under LGPL-2.1 OR MIT license, with a copyright date starting in 2017.

The string "Tarreau" does not exist in the Cosmopolitan library, so that's a strong negative there. Let's look closer.

The file organization is quite different. And so is the implementation. So that's another negative.

Compare the vfprintf in nolibc at https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc4/source/tools/inclu... (a 'minimal vfprintf()') with the one in cosmopolitan starting at https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/blob/master/libc/stdio/....

Right away we can see nolibc places many functions in the same file while Cosmopolitan uses a one-function-per-filename organization.

Cosmopolitan's fvprintf locks the file (which nolibc doesn't need to do) then calls vfprintf_unlocked which calls __fmt at https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/blob/master/libc/fmt/fm... , which is the actual implementation. It look very different from NOLIBC's.

Okay, so perhaps that's they way now but not at the beginning?

We can also go back to Cosmopolitan's original implementation and see how vfprintf goes through https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/blob/c91b3c50068224929c... to call "palandprintf", which https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/blob/c91b3c50068224929c... says is copyright "Marco Paland" from 2014-2019.

That's a few years older than the start of nolibc, available from https://github.com/mpaland/printf , and part of https://github.com/embeddedartistry/libc , a "libc targeted for embedded systems usage".

Thus, multiple factors seem to agree that nolibc code is not used in the Cosmopolitan library.

I wrap this C implementation in a C++ Logger class and use it to "print" into a simple buffer. Then the static buffer is periodically unrolled into a transport layer using a static Logger::transmit() function in my BSP. I'm working with very little flash, so the linked implementation is essential.

There are many good and tiny printf's fir embedded on GitHub. https://github.com/mpaland/printf eg Better than the bsd printf mostly

I'm sure sprintf itself is working in their library, so try to find other issues first, BUT, as a last resort you can try another lib: https://github.com/mpaland/printf/

looked at that account, found this one too