Mail Archives: djgpp/2009/01/08/16:30:07
"Rugxulo" <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote in message
news:886d17b9-399f-48ed-ac4d-45ca11d3879f AT s20g2000yqh DOT googlegroups DOT com...
> The only problem I had is due to inexperience: I don't know how to
> organize the actual compiler install to correctly work without -I and -
> L hacks (i.e. I didn't want to make a C:\USR\LOCAL dir just to hope
> it'd work). I mean, I'm wondering can you install it similar to a
> default DJGPP install (C:\DJGPP\BIN, LIB, INCLUDE, etc.) or do you
> have to run it like "..\i386-moss\i386-moss-gcc" ?? I'm sure somebody
> knows, they're probably just too lazy^H^H^H^H busy. ;-)
It seems Binutils 2.19 supports moss as does GCC upto 3.3.6. So, you should
be able to build new enough versions to be useful.
But, I'm having problems. Neither DJGPP 3.4.1 nor 3.3.6 would cross-compile
stock GCC 3.3.6 failing in the middle of compiling gcc.c complaining about
an
assignments to a read-only variable. Perhaps, I should try DJGPP GCC 3.3.6
compiling DJGPP GCC 3.3.6 as a cross-compile, but I thought the code for GCC
hadn't been changed for DJGPP... Binutils fails near the end of make with
error 2. I know from past experience, that once everything is working
correctly, those mysteriously go away. This is one reason why I prefer to
always have binaries, but be able to get source instead of the GNU it's
always source, and never binaries model. Even if the code won't compile
anymore, the executable will work.
> Anyways, I could always just e-mail you the binaries I compiled
I'd rather get it to work on my machine. I've experienced similar problems
trying to cross-build with DJGPP in the past.
> > If I can compile it, it should be easier to port or at
> > least get the code to compile on newer versions. I'm not saying I can
get
> > it working or anything, just that I'll look into it.
>
> I know, no pressure. It was all your idea anyways. Only try to have
> some fun with it. ;-)
Sorry, for some reason, I was thinking you compiled moss.exe... Actually,
with the size of moss.exe being so small, I can't imagine all of the code he
included actually being used. It's just a matter of determining what was
used, since I'm not sure that it'll ever compile again in it's current form.
> You can ask
./configure --target=i386-moss
./configure --target=i386-moss --host=i386-pc-msdosdjgpp --build=i386-pc-msd
osdjgpp
What did you use or do? But, I think I might be using the wrong set of
sources: stock GNU instead of DJGPP.
> > The MOSS version runs under MS-DOS v7.10, but has "'\n' -> '\r\n'
issues."
>
> I have no idea what that means.
Ah, I quoted what you quoted. DOS uses both an ASCII carriage return (CR or
\r) and linefeed (LF or \n) to move to the beginning of the next line. LF
in DOS moves down a line. CR moves to the begining of the line. *NIX
usually uses just LF to do both. Mac's use just CR to do both. This was a
historical misunderstanding with early ASCII. DJGPP fixes this behind the
scenes. So, when text just using LF is displayed, it moves down a line, but
not to the start of the line. The text shows up as a staggered and
wrap-around look. Think stack of domino's versus stack of domino's with a
tilt.
> I found an actual example using MOSS, and it's by the same guy (Bryan
> Ford): Inner Worlds (now freeware)
>
> http://www.dosgames.com/g_side3.php
>
> It's fairly big for a DOS game (20 MB once installed, same size as
> BasicLinux, heh), most of that is data anyways, but it's pretty cool
> (to say the least). The funny part is that the custom installer uses
> MOSS, the SETUP and README progs use MOSS, and so does the actual game
> itself (IW.EXE), which is 17 MB with all data and extender bound to
> itself. Now that's a whopper! ;-)
...
> Atari Lynx
What? I thought you were younger than that... ;)
> http://www.brynosaurus.com/
I didn't realize he worked on vx32 also... I've read the papers and looked
it over a few times. It, like many other open projects, has some features I
like, but it isn't as developed as much as I'd like or going in the
direction I'd like. In the case of vx32, they just do binary translation to
implement their sandbox. But, with more development, vx32 could be used as
an x86 emulator, possibly with much better performance than others.
> P.P.S. Sébastien, you cross-posted to the wrong group! :-P
I threw on comp.os.msdos.programmer. He posted to the wrong thread there.
His response was to Herbert Kleebauer in "Adding equal sign as a parameter."
RP
- Raw text -