Mail Archives: djgpp/2013/06/26/04:15:06
<rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote in message
news:a5de500e-67da-4fc7-83d9-8842e04e8235 AT googlegroups DOT com...
<OT>
> BTW, TinyC had a big update recently.
Ah! I'd stopped checking for updates of it... Thanks.
> I don't know what "port MinGW to DOS" means,
> but I'm very very skeptical.
Basically, I was asking how difficult it would be to create a DOS
only version of MinGW. If MSVCRT has many functions and MinGW
uses many of them, it'll take much coding to remove or replace
them. If the MSVCRT functions MinGW uses are complicated, not
simple, it'll take even more work. Some C libraries only need
about 20 functions to bootstrap, while others need many.
If yet another DOS C compiler is needed, it might be better to get
the DOS versions of LCC, versions 3.5 and 3.6, working again.
Then, migrate useable updates from 4.1 and 4.2 back.
Or, it might be better to de-Linux-ify TCC, e.g., remove the dlopen
and dlsym related code, do test compiles with DJGPP, and figure out
how to bootstrap later, perhaps with the old TurboC.
> [...]but OpenWatcom (thankfully) doesn't.
I was using OW v1.3, but I've basically stopped using it. By
comparison, code for DJGPP just compiles and works. It's
definately not better though. OW doesn't support the piping like
DJGPP. OW does catch certain errors better, e.g., signed vs
unsigned character mismatches. OW also has some wierd issues with
buffering of stdin and stdout, i.e., don't change the buffering.
OW generates faster code than DJGPP. OW also generates far
superior x86 byte-sized instructions for characters, e.g., using
AL, AH, BL, etc. Although, it is possible to get DJGPP to do so
using carefully crafted C code. OW is also very good for
identifying code that DJGPP or GCC or Linux supports, but other DOS
compilers don't, e.g., POSIX, DPMI, LFN, etc. That version of OW
doesn't support LFN and DPMI as well either, i.e., you have to
setup the entire function call, whereas DJGPP has setup most of
these as a function for you already. I'm not sure what has changed
or been fixed since v1.3.
> I know you hate email, but perhaps GNU PG would help??
Doesn't that need an email account to work? I guess you could use
it with NNTP. But, that doesn't eliminate the need for an email
account in order to setup other accounts for forums, etc. I.e., I
don't need privacy, I need to be able to setup accounts which don't
also require an email account to setup. What's the point of that?
You can't confirm the identity of the email account holder
either... It's like a merchant asking for a credit card before
accepting a cash payment (illegal in the US, BTW). I could use a
trash mail service, but I run the risk of having private
information, e.g., login or account confirmation info, sent to a
junk account or a temporary account which might exist for only a
short time period. What I need is a no email, browser based,
account setup form for forums etc. Unfortunately, US law requires
a birthdate under certain account setup situations. So, those
requirements are generally applied to the setup of most accounts,
email or other in the US, whether they're actually required or not
by law. The just web seems to be against me. So, I may need to
get a non-US email account to protect my personal information and
let me create accounts elsewhere.
> Sure, but keep in mind that Japheth long ago disclaimed any hold
> over HimemX, so he's not really a maintainer (anymore, if ever).
Oh, I didn't realize he disclaimed maintainership.
> IIRC, he even refused the simple "jmp $+2" 386 patch. :-(
I included the corrected version of that in my patch.
> Though worst case, I'll just try to mirror your patch to iBiblio.
>
Thanks.
If Japheth ignores it, rejects it, or doesn't have time for it,
then I could package up one with the exe. Then, you could do me
yet another favor and mirror it on your website (lol). However, I
was hoping the code could be reviewed by someone skilled in x86 and
experienced with Himemx too, like Japheth, Devore, or some of the
guys on DOSX, before being hosted on iBiblio, on Japheth's site, or
on your site. My main concern is I can't test some of the really
old machines HIMEMX works on. I also can't currently test the
machine it was intended for. I may get it working by this fall.
So, I just don't know if I introduced any unintended errors.
Rod Pemberton
- Raw text -