X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Rugxulo Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: 'The system cannot execute the specified program' (again) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 13:28:21 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 113 Message-ID: References: <6nk3hhFm2at0U1 AT mid DOT uni-berlin DOT de> <6nlir1Fm2e1kU1 AT mid DOT uni-berlin DOT de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1226179702 18565 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2008 21:28:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 21:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com Injection-Info: k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.61 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.1.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id mA8LUAW0025722 Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hi, On Nov 8, 7:40 am, "Andreas Eibach" wrote: > > > > This old thread from 2006: > > [...] > > > finally brought some insight that djgpp uses a 16-bit stub that will > make > > > any 32bit program _look_ like a 16 bit app for MSDOS. > > > True. > > Very true, and just an insanity for 2008. Windows NT-based OSes are popular for DOS users for only one reason: stability. They greatly increase the footprint, and they suck a lot more at compatibility. Seems silly, esp. since things like Vista are actually freakin' worse for DOS than XP. And then there's good ol' x86-64, which kills V86 mode .... Wouldn't be a big deal if emulation wasn't so damn slow. > > > Is there - after 2 years - still no way to circumvent this (compiling > > > options?) apart from silly workarounds I already read about in the > thread > > > from 2 years ago? > > > You could try Daniel Borca's DJELF.  It's a version of DJGPP which > produces > > ELF executables. [...] > >http://www.geocities.com/dborca/djgpp/elf/djelf.html > > Thanks again, I will also take a look there. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that unless you need those features. It's not exactly supported, and you're stuck to only one version of GCC. I don't think you'll find much help for it, if any (since the author is pretty much MIA). > > If  DJGPP implemented it's 16-bit > > DPMI startup stub as an DPMI executable loader as a DOS application or as > a > > int 0x21 TSR 'exec' function extension, you'd be set. > > I guess so. And that *MUST* happen someday, otherwise DJGPP will - see other > post - be merely an application for some old-time hardware enthusiasts. I'll admit, DJGPP isn't as active as it once was, but considering how much more robust it is now compared to a few years ago, it's very hard (impossible?) to complain. These guys (DJ, CWS, Juan, Eli) have kicked some serious butt in their efforts. As cliche as it is, I think we really need to place blame with MS for their broken DOS compatibility. (I don't know why DOS is such a four-letter word to some people.) > > Yes, it's possible.  I'd like to see DJGPP produce pure 32-bit > applications: > > multi-boot protocol (either ELF or a.out "kludge") and unstubbed DPMI with > a > > separate loader. > > You bet me too! Again, it is 2008, not 1995 anymore! > Since it will be simply silly to try hard at all costs to comply with, say, > MSDOS 6.22 in 2010. In case you haven't noticed, most DOS diehards use MS-DOS 7.10 or FreeDOS instead. And there is a fairly noticeable difference vs. oldy- moldy 6.22. But it doesn't hurt to support MS-DOS 6.22 also. Anyways, 6.22 never supported LFNs or FAT32, so obviously DJGPP extends beyond that. > If it's old-fashioned like stovepipe hats, they need to blow a fresh breeze > into the old cruft, period. Otherwise people will switch to another software > (MingW then) but alas, this can also initiate a process of renewal. MinGW isn't necessarily better, just different. Same with Cygwin. And don't forget OpenWatcom. All have their uses, just some have better support in some areas. It depends on what OS, what DLLs, what licenses, what APIs, what speed, etc. you need. And it's not like DOS isn't developed anymore (although FreeDOS-32 did pretty much stall indefinitely ...), just people are busy with other things. > > Well, the only suggestion I have is to use the full exact path... > > Thanks, but I have multiple options, say ... > tool.exe -f -l -v (verbose) etc. > This whole thing is called via a subroutine in the .BAT. > > Note too that tool.exe is running from a *fixed* directory, but the batch > file (doing lots of for /f ... token | delim magic) is CD'ing into each > directory to do its operation there. And once the current path exceeds the > aforementioned 64 bytes, the error message from the subject is spit out. You know that all DJGPP apps by default allow ".../*.c" for recursion, right? > No. I'll be sincere: I'll use MingW for now. > BUT: since I'm a long time DJGPP user (and only recently need directory > recursion supporting VERY long paths) I will come back to it once the winds > of > modernism will have blown a sharp gust into it :) (Bout time, dammit! :P) DJGPP is plenty modern, but there's always room for improvement. Of course, the mantra you'll typically hear is this: "Code it yourself or use GNU/Linux." :-(