Mail Archives: djgpp/2003/02/08/13:45:08
If you want real-mode code, you can do it with GCC. However, there is a fair
bit of work involved (you've got to make sure that the code and data fits in
64kB, otherwise you've got to do the segmentation by hand; and you've got to
make your own libraries). GCC is natively 32-bit, and DJGPP natively uses
DPMI.
I love GCC since 3.2.1, since I can now assemble fully in Intel syntax, and
I can make code that'll even run on a lowly 8086.
Scott J. McCaughrin <sjmccaug AT bluestem DOT prairienet DOT org> wrote in message
news:b23b7e$bjk$1 AT wildfire DOT prairienet DOT org...
> Andrew Cottrell <andnews AT ihug DOT com DOT oz DOT au> wrote:
>
> : On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:02:57 GMT, Spam Averse <nobody AT spamcop DOT net> >I
> : have a project that is currently built with Borland's Turbo C/C++
> : v3.0.
> :>(For you youngsters, this circa 1992 compiler generates 16-bit DOS
> :>executables for the 86/186/286 CPUs.) The code is run on a
Pentium-based
> :>embedded system under MS-DOS v6.22. Not only does this compiler not
> :>generate 32-bit code, but the code that it does generate is terribly
> :>inefficient. I'm considering DJGPP as a replacement for the Turbo C/C++
> :>compiler.
>
> The question remains: is DJGPP really for MS-DOS? If so, then I should
> be able to make 16-bit INT 21h DOS function calls. If I cannot make
> such calls, it is really not DOS-compliant. So which is it?
>
- Raw text -