Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/26/03:00:32
kifox wrote:
> In article <34CAEB55 DOT 6CEC1041 AT thegrid DOT net>, elange AT thegrid DOT net says...
> >
> >I need to do some 32-bit programming under DOS, but not with DPMI
> >compliance. So far, I have been doing all of my development using MASM
> >6.11, because only an assembler gives me the flexibility I need.
> >However, my development time is too long, and I need to develop an SDK
> >for other users (my application is an OS-extender).
> >
> >I want to be able to develop in C/C++ for obvious reasons. But, all I
> >need the compiler to do is generate 32-bit code under some set of
> >assumptions. I also want the linker to allow me to replace all of the
> >startup code, so I can load it any way I choose. Basically, I just need
> >to know the compiler assumptions.
>
> Why would you want to do this? Only real reason I can think of for replacing
> the DJGPP startup code is so one could load some kind of virus-infested
> startup code in it's place.....
I take some offense to that remark. I can think of several reasons why
someone would want to do that. In my case, I am developing a hardware
virtualizer for DOS to allow devices to be emulated in software. You may not be
aware, but this is not an easy task in an operating system that gives free reign
to the application. I have developed most of the core code, but I need some way
to develop (and allow others to develop) driver code, and I don't want to force
them to use assembly language. I have my own loader, I just need some way to
package the code in some other format than an .EXE.
So there. Does anybody (else) have any ideas?
- Raw text -