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 bocke(R), 03.03.2012, 23:43

I was writing a rather long reply, but my session expired. :( So just shortly...

The last change in DJGPP CVS is from 5y ago. It's good there are still ports. It keeps it alive. But without any activity in upstream... I don't know.

Re C99. You should know. :P I think the last 7za port in FreeDOS was yours. Btw, that build is case sensitive. Had troubles with it under DosBox. I guess it would work flawlessly on real DOS, but... I use DosBox for qicktesting to run dos apps directly from right click menu on Linux.

Re owatcom. Wcc(386) is not a big problem. Wlink is. I was thinkng on writing a small ld like wrapper around it but I doubt I'll have time for it.

I am aware of your mini OWatcom, but haven't played much with it. :) I was talking about upstream. ;) Btw, there is also this advice from Rod Pemberton:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.os.msdos.djgpp/2005-10/msg00030.html

Bcc and Desmet were only a sidenotes. They are usable, but not for heavy duty porting/development. Small C was another sidenote. Mainly to counter your add of microc to the list. :) I'm pretty sure Dave's MicroC is great, but haven't played with it and don't consider it a tool for heavy duty porting. :)

Re ACK. It's pretty much Unix(tm) specific. But might be possible. Ancient backends are pretty much non ANSI compliant or obsolete.

Re ELKS. It had it's own problems. They wanted it to be educational so a lot of complex ideas never got their try. And toolchain is base on Minix 8086/286 toolchain which had the same limits. It even uses minixfs (which is btw great for floppies). To make something out of it, they had to improve toolchain. But mainstream developement of bcc stoped. Even Minix went with gcc in 386 version. So bcc got hardly any developemnt beside what Robert de Bath was doing. Bcc also limits the size of kernel, which makes it tough to add enough device drivers. They did a sample implementation(s) of loadable module drivers but it collided with swap implementation. The other problem is limited support for 386+ and no pm support. DOS use extenders for this. One of ideas they were toying in the past was making kind of loadable drivers like in DOS. But nothing got out from this idea.

Offtopic I was playing with wcc and djgpp for a several days now (mostly Thomas Dickey's stuff, including a newer version of byacc then in Freedos). What is best way to put that stuff for test. A new topic? I am afraid it's nothing compared to the stuff you guys do, but it might be usefull to someone. Yes, I'm a lamer. :)

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15108 Postings in 1358 Threads, 245 registered users, 10 users online (0 registered, 10 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum