Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Old 8086 version of pcc spotted (cross-compiles to DOS) (Miscellaneous)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 01.03.2012, 21:48

> Micro C is more a limited C subset for embedded applications. Something
> along the lines of Small C.

I know, I just meant you shouldn't expect "long" to work, for instance, which is kinda inconvenient (though there are workarounds). It's also is tiny or small model only output. But it's open source now (BSD-ish), I just haven't messed with it much. The author even dropped by here once (year ago?). I haven't tried it with JWasm + VAL, but IIRC it also supports A86.

> 32-bit
> ======
> ACC (386, incomplete ?, educational, cardware)

I think I saw somewhere? that this is GPL'd nowadays. It may be on SourceForge, I can't remember. IIRC, it also had some annoying quirks, so I didn't mess much with it.

> 16-bit
> ======
> PCC 1.2b - 1.2d (a freeware version of Desmet C)

Shareware, I thought, but with Desmet C GPL'd, it's moot.

> Miracle C 1.5 - 1.7 (shareware, req. MS link, comes with cc and clib,
> limited?)

Supposedly pretty good, esp. the book, which I was often told "was worth the $20 alone". Then again, that was when people still actively advocated DJGPP as an alternative, heh, my how times change. :-/

> Limited C subset
> ================
> Ron Cain's Small C 8086/8088 ports (original published in DDJ)
> * Project -fbin (diff. versions, req. nasm, modern)
> * Small C 2.1 - 2.2 (by James Hendrix, shareware, improved)
> * BYTE Small-C 1.0 (Rick Grehan, BYTE Mag., req ms link/masm)
> * Caproc Small-C (8088, req. ms link/masm)

See BTTR's Links, JH's Small C is public domain now. But it's too minimal and non-standard for my tastes, sorry. It's not bad, just I have no patience for learning yet another non-standard syntax.

> Re toolchain:
> Generally, it seems to be the practice to have the toolchain similar to the
> one you mentioned. I don't know if there is some "standard" how to
> implement C compiler. There seem to be different implementations with some
> common points.

Yes, they all seem to (more or less) follow a common methodology.

I also wonder sometimes how much work it would be to port (T)ACK to DOS. Can't be that hard (famous last words). ;-) But it's weird (latest uses Lua build system, assumes GCC, doesn't support barely any targets anymore, would need a DOS libc). Even EM44 doesn't build anymore, meh. That's what you get for reviving something last touched in 1994. Yeah, old code sucks. But it's a nice compiler and has several interesting frontends.

P.S. This is all (pseudo) "academic" interest, and marcov will probably hate me for it, heh. I'm just vaguely interested in compilers in general, even if they are all heavily flawed.

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15196 Postings in 1365 Threads, 250 registered users, 14 users online (0 registered, 14 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum