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 marcov(R), 30.07.2008, 22:57

> > 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).

It works, but it is messy for people that don't know the drill. Trying to do this learns you how to up gcc and binutils verbosity options :-)

> > 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.

And not 32-bit? Since even _IF_ I were that braindead, the ratio's would be roughly equal still for upxed 64-bit/upxed 32-bits.

> > 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
(...)

It was a big deal for the OS and maybe driver creators only. Not for the app programmers. If you have to count those, you also need to count PAE.

> > 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).

Not everything, but the missing pieces are fairly minimal. M2 has the better concepts and syntax, but the improvements on Pascal are not crucial enough to use a less compiler.

> 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.)

IMHO there is no good one, probably Stonybrook comes closest. FST is ages old, and was never extended beyond the minimal.

GNU M2 moves very slowly, and has similar problems as GNU Pascal. I hope that Freebasic can avoid the pitfalls these two projects had with recycling gcc.

Topspeed was nice, and is IMHO still one of the best, if not THE best 16-bit compiler. (also had C++ and an ISO Pascal with minimal TP mode)

Still, I abandoned M2 for Pascal because of compiler quality, and I never looked back.

(added in postedit)

The M2 crowd in my days also seemed more interested in correctness and standarization details than in general purpose application building. Probably most were either teachers or embedded programmers, two fields were M2 was extensively used.

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15192 Postings in 1365 Threads, 250 registered users, 15 users online (0 registered, 15 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum