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), 05.03.2012, 20:14

> But actually, I'm fairly certain you're wrong. I've seen the posts and am
> subscribed (heh, why?) to djgpp-workers, so there definitely has been some
> minor patchwork in the past few months, let alone five years.
>

Ah ok. :) Do they have another CVS server? Or he's just not submitting the stuff upstream?

> Grab
> djgpp.cvs.tar.gz,
> gunzip it, then do this: "tar tvf djgpp.cvs.tar.gz | grep 2012- | wc", and
> it should say 21 lines (aka, at least 21 files changed this year). For
> 2009, 2010, 2011: 16 lines, 10 lines, 321 lines respectively.
>

Thanx. Will do.

> DJGPP is not dead (yet, barely, close but not quite).
>

Glad to hear that. :)

> I didn't write any new code, just got 4.65 to compile, which was a bit
> hairy. 9.13 was from Khusraw. Both have the same problem: trying to compile
> a POSIX (*nix) port atop DOS with DJGPP when the original had heavy
> Win32-isms in it. There are a lot of "#ifdef _WIN32" in there, which is why
> some of it doesn't work as well on DOS.
>

I know. What I meant is.. Lzma sdk based stuff uses a lot (?) of C99. But I don't know how good is 3.3.x support for C99. Had varied experiences. But it works ok. :)

> Depends on how hard you want to tweak them, how much you want to get your
> hands dirty, what you want to do, etc.
>

Indeed. :)

> ACK supports ANSI quite well. But yes, I looked again yesterday, the build
> process is fairly heinous. I wonder sometimes if the time saved using
> arcane build practices is really worth the pain in trying to make them not
> break. Sure, it takes longer to build from scratch, but at least you know
> it will build, unlike trying to configure everything otherwise, ugh. (But
> this is more of a *nix and C problem.)
>

You're talking about resurrected version? Classic ACK didn't have ANSI support.

> ELKS is too hard to install and modify, IMHO. But are we really surprised?
> FreeDOS barely gets any work done, so how can we expect Linux users to
> care? Most of their code assumes 32-bit ints, they can't be bothered with
> 16-bit, even with (some) POSIX support. It's just not interesting to them,
> esp. with the advent of AMD64. It's a lost cause, almost. :-/
>

Not only Linux. :)

> I don't know about latest Minix, haven't tried. 3.2.0 was just released. It
> probably still uses ACK (or at least used to). Presumably it "also" builds
> with GCC. This is also probably because of the BSD-ish license, but who
> knows. Yes, it seems 3.2.0 is borrowing heavily from NetBSD.
>

Well, Minix is quite modern right now. Minix 3 requires i586 or i686 and uses GCC. They switched a long time ago. They used the classic ACK in the beginning (after bcc?). Btw, their first 386 version in the mid ninties used GCC by default. Only 16-bit port (which died with version 3) used ACK. Minix 3 got announced in 2005.

> The typical "solution" you'll hear to such problems is just ignore it.
> "Nobody" (they say) sells or makes or uses less than 386 / 32-bit anyways,
> so it's not worth doing.
>

True.

> Personally, I think that's a copout. But yeah, it's hard to talk to some
> people. It's kind of a weird pissing contest in some ways, everyone wants
> to show up someone else.
>

Agreed.

> There is a DJGPP port of
> BYacc,
> but I'm not heavily familiar with it (or "yacc" in general).
>

I have 4 ports (and wrote a nice batch build system for it): 32-bit Watcom without LFN, 32-bit Watcom with 1.9 long names, 16-bit Watcom without LFN (not sure how well would it work with LFN compiled in, tests in qemu showed it to be buggy if LFN driver is not loaded), and a "classic" DJGPP build.

I tested with some software and it seems to work ok. All variants. :)

Well, I'm thinking of uploading stuff I was playing with to my site soon.

> As for kicking the tires, dunno. The only things that I know of that might?
> be easy to build and need Yacc are GNU Bash (also needs m4) or Detlef's
> LCC/DJ.

Bash is most likely to use Bison-isms, so I don't know how would it work with Berkley's Yacc (a classic favour). :)

 

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