Mail Archives: djgpp/2006/03/09/07:45:57
moin,moin (hello) mr. broeker.
first of all, thank you for your time.
Hans-Bernhard Broeker schrieb:
> I've been meaning to ask you this before: why do you use such an
> incredibly ancient version of GCC?
because i've purchased an gnu c/c++ compiler a few years ago, a package that
came on cd. (ISBN is :
3-8266-2714-8, price was 39.80 deutsche mark :^/ ).
i've downloaded an update later, like from the pentium compiler group, that
designed a cc1.exe, gcc.exe for the pentium processor.
>
> > all the time , when trying to link my c++ compiled .o file,
>
> Similar question: why write it in C++, of all things?
That is because I want to use OOP things, like classes with its automatic
const./dest. calls. I like this.
> That one's easy: you didn't load the standard runtime library, nor did
> you supply an alternative that would allo the program to know how to
> start itself up.
Yes, indeed, didn't I allow ld / gcc to load std.RT.-lib, because I tried to
design everything that'll be needed to execute the kernel code by myself.
> > sys.cc(.text+0x47): undefined reference to `__builtin_delete'
> > sys.cc(.text+0x101): undefined reference to `__main'
> > How can I avoid __builtin_delete from being called,
> By writing C instead of C++. By not using any objects, maybe.
That doesn't sounds good. So, there is no way round designing the kernel in
pure ansi c code, using perhaps nasty, ugly code structures to emulate
things like 'auto-cleanups' (destroying of allocated data etc.)...
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
> Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -