Mail Archives: opendos/1997/04/18/09:29:55
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
> > > Agreed. FAT32 isn't much of interest. For the tools, we'd need dynamically
> > > linkable libraries...
> > True. We only need to decide on the DLL format we chose.
>
> Gone as we are to using Linux code, how 'bout ELF? Maybe COFF, but I don't
> like this format much... Except for DJGPP, I think it is mostly used in
> commercial Unices... Not sure about that. ELF should be fine. But if I
But ELF is hardly documented. Sure, we can use BFD library, but no BFD
maintainer works on/with DOS!
> remember right, things like DLLs need protected mode to be done in an
> efficient manner...
Well... yes.
> > structures). BTW. I was thinking whether I can program the driver using i386+
> > instructions? After all DOS is an 8086+ OS and not i386+! What do you think?
>
> FreeDOS takes great pains in being a 8086+ OS and uses a free C compiler
> that actually comes with the OS... Maybe look that way? Heard the language
> is rather minimal (I think it is called Micro-C), has been described like
I heard also about LCC and BCC - has anyone used them?
> a "structured assembler"... (though I think C is just that! ;-) ) Does
> 16-bit real mode... But isn't OpenDOS going to be modern and everything?
> The initial version being 16-bit because NW-DOS 7 was, but boldly going
> where no DOS has gone before? So probably 386 instructions are ok.
But what about all those XT/AT network terminals in use?
> > > Get the Linux latest sources... The 2.1.something...
> > Got sources for 2.0.0 - has anything important changed in ext2fs and VFAT
> > drivers?
>
> Hmm... I think not, maybe some minimal debugging, since ext2fs and VFAT
> modules are quite tested and solid. Most of the new things are in the
> networking department (adding native NetBEUI, improving IPX support).
I heard that DOSEMU doesn't need emumodule anymore!
- Raw text -