Message-ID:	<37D5F04E.A5F1444@unb.ca>
From:	Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: WARNING: DOS is about to die.
References:	<7quo1t$94k$1 AT solomon DOT cs DOT rose-hulman DOT edu> <37D2ECE3 DOT 9BB2B63E AT unb DOT ca> <37D46EBF DOT 22AAC1C4 AT hmc DOT edu>
Lines:	51
Date:	Wed, 08 Sep 1999 05:30:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	198.164.188.102
X-Trace:	news20.bellglobal.com 936768622 198.164.188.102 (Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:30:22 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:30:22 EDT
Organization:	Sympatico
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Nate Eldredge wrote:

> >     Either way, the 64-bit intel chips will go mass-market in late 2000/early
> > 2001.  And many other companies will follow suite, so I expect a 64-bit version
> > of GCC will be born.
> "Be born"?  Seen an Alpha lately?  Guess what compiler it uses?

    OK, I meant a Merced version.

> Incidentally, I have heard that various people working under temporary
> NDA's are already porting GCC to the Merced, so when the Merced comes
> out, GCC may already work on it.

    I've heard that as well.

> > Word from Microsoft is that they will not be able to get
> > a 64-bit version of Windows out until ~2003, and it will be a complete re-write
> > (because of the large penalty for executing 32-bit code on the Merced
> > processor).
>
> "Complete rewrite" sounds unlikely to me.  There is already NT for the
> Alpha, and I doubt it was a complete rewrite.

    NT for an Alpha was just a hacked version of the 32-bit code.  It is like taking
some Borland C 3.1 code and compiling it under gcc.  When compiling errors are
detected, they are fixed, and to make everything work more smoothly, you can replace
'int' by 'short', and make a few macro's to help with 16-bit pointers.  What you end
up with, is a program that works, but is slow because it is almost emulating a 16-bit
environment to run your program.  This is what happened for the Alpha version of NT.

> The 32-bit code can be got rid of just by recompiling, and I doubt the
> architecture differences require *that* much work.  But I suppose it's
> possible that Microsoft's code is so screwed up that it really is
> necessary...

    Well, the Merced allows for functional multiprocessing, and any OS that doesn't
take advantage of that would be extremely slow compared to all others.  My limited
understanding of the Merced is that you can set up 2 lines of code (at the assembler
level) to run simultaneously, and even whole procedures which run simultaneously.
Also, the MS code for Win98 still has a large chunk that runs in 16-bit mode, because
they felt it wasn't worth the effort to convert it.  It turns out that the Merced
will make it worth their while to re-write it, and that will take a long time.
--
     (\/) Endlisnis (\/)
          s257m AT unb DOT ca
          Endlisnis AT HotMail DOT com
          ICQ: 32959047

- Raw text -