Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

HX question about link.exe (DOSX)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 30.07.2008, 16:32
(edited by Rugxulo on 30.07.2008, 16:49)

> Total RAM use under Windows is higher, but not twice. This is logical,
> since most are buffers anyway. Moreover, both systems can run also 32-bit
> binaries, and e.g. 64-bit bootcds often only have a 64-bit kernel, but a
> complete 32-bit userland. So does e.g. Mac OS X (which installs a 64-bit
> kernel on x86 during setup if it sees that you have enough ram iirc)

AFAICT, Xubuntu x86-64 is all 64-bit userland (according to file, at least). In general, I think compiling for 32-bit is done via something like "-m 32", but I've never tried (and you also need the 32-bit libraries too).

> If you see programs in the process manager, they are nearly twice the
> size. Say 170-180% of the 32-bit eq. Similarly on disc.

I know I'm beating a dead horse by mentioning this, but UPX does actually support Linux 64-bit binaries.

> Yes, but you can't introduce a whole new architecture every two years.
> Till now it happened twice. The i386 and the x86_64.

While true, I would also add that the 286 itself seems to have been a fair change itself, mainly because of several factors: IBM's penchant for selling lots of it and committing to it via OS/2, the fastest speed increase between subsequent processors ever, lack of (official) way to switch out of pmode (e.g. breaking compatibility), as well as obviously adding pmode to the instruction set and increasing total RAM potential to 16 MB. Granted, it didn't add or extend any registers, but it was still a big deal at the time (from what I hear).

>> I don't know about your experiences or what languages / cpus you've
>> programmed for ...
>
> Pascal's, Modula2, C, Java bit of C++ and C# and asm for an arch or 5.
> (6510,68k,ppc,arm,x86,x86_64. Dabbled with sparc. And several
> "Microchip" embedded cpu's).

I assume you would agree with my (blind) guess that FreePascal probably does everything Modula2 does and more (unlike original Pascal). And I was curious about Modula2 recently even though I've never tried it. I did find this interesting:

http://cfbsoftware.com/modula2/

> The Lilith executes M-code, a pseudo-code similar to the P-code of
> the Pascal compilers also designed by N. Wirth. The M2M-PC System is
> an M-code interpreter for the IBM-PC running DOS 2.0 developed by
> the Modula Research Institute allowing the Lilith Modula-2 compiler
> and its output to be executed on the IBM-PC.

> The first Modula-2 compiler was completed in 1979 and ran on the
> DEC PDP-11. This is the source code of the PC version of the
> second Modula-2 compiler. It generates M-code for the Lilith and can be
> compiled and run using the M2M-PC System.

Of course, I suspect something like FST's compiler are more popular / useful? / compliant? (And there are various M2 -> C convertors as well as GNU Modula2 which apparently is src-only.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula_2

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15189 Postings in 1365 Threads, 250 registered users, 10 users online (0 registered, 10 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum