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), 06.03.2012, 03:51

> I'm pretty sure ACK has supported ANSI since a long time, at least since
> Minix 2.0.0 series. The last public "official" ACK from Vrije Universitat
> was 5.5 (see here).

Sorry my bad. I just played with Minix a bit some time ago. You seem to be more informed then me. :)

Btw, I had success running the recent versions in qemu. That is without VT-X (sadly).

> I thought? I had read somewhere that they were still defaulting to ACK and
> GCC was only optional. I can't imagine they'd switch entirely, but
> <sarcasm> those pesky (Linux) spies^H^H^H^H^H volunteers probably have
> their own preferences (sabotage!). </sarcasm>

You have penguinofobia. :D

> Does 32-bit DOS output work with LFNs? In my limited testing, I didn't
> think so. Even the compiler itself isn't LFN-aware, so I wasn't very
> impressed. Sad, really, I guess there aren't enough volunteers, and I'm not
> convinced I could help very much.

It seems to work fine. At least with what I tested. What problems did you have? I'll test it more and let you know. I did a several quick tests. Nothing too thoroughly.

> 16-bit seems to work with LFN okay, but I didn't heavily test. I guess it
> depends on what calls are used. You can disable LFN at runtime, I think, by
> "set LFN=n", IIRC.

I don't know. Won't play with that soon. I can't seem to get word/bit/etc definitions for 16-bit right anyway... It seemed to work fine with a simple example. But with something other than that... Still have to test.

But yes. It seems to work fine when LFN driver is loaded. Otherwise it still tries to use LFN. But that that's my experience with only one package (small untar utility) so it may be generalization.

> IIRC, building ACK on Linux didn't work with Bison, perhaps I had to
> install BYACC instead, funnily enough. But ACK is weird, prefers LLGEN.
> Honestly, it's such a weird beast to build that I'm not sure what it needs.
> Certainly it's a bit too *nix-y. Wirth compilers usually compile themselves
> and are simpler and cleaner. But ACK is written in C for *nix, so whatever,
> always seems to complicate everything. I guess it's really just a cultural
> difference, I'm not really complaining (but I definitely don't understand
> it enough to port it).

I haven't look much into it. But it seems like a "no so easy task".

> P.S. In particular, with Detlef's
> LCC/DJ build, he had a public DJGPP setup that he used, but it didn't
> include the Bison-generated output, so I had to install Bison + m4, and I
> tried telling him that BYACC (apparently) didn't need M4, so he could use /
> include that, but I don't think he ever "fixed" it. Oh well. But LCC is
> definitely easier to build than GCC, though of course it (at least 4.2) is
> C89 only and less optimizing, to say the least. (And he uses NASM as
> assembler, which LCC can build, but it still requires GNU ld.)

Bookmarked. :) I'll check out his lcc. Good idea for a more detailed test.

What's wrong with ld? Can it be built with Deitmar's lcc build? Have you tried any other linker with COFF support (just brainstorming)?


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15297 Postings in 1378 Threads, 254 registered users, 12 users online (0 registered, 12 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum