X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Received: by 10.224.129.196 with SMTP id p4mr523072qas.6.1372178664859; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:44:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.25.36 with SMTP id z4mr681639qef.6.1372178664842; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:44:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246 References: <713e6460-511d-4b27-a9a5-b07cc63fd02d AT googlegroups DOT com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Rebuilding 2.04 from source From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:44:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Bytes: 4653 Lines: 79 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk Hi, On Monday, June 24, 2013 3:51:14 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > My results with configure scripts have been it either works or it > doesn't. When it doesn't, generally the code is using something > the DJGPP doesn't support. When it does, the app compiles for > DJGPP. I.e., if the configure script doesn't work, it's a strong > indication it won't compile without some work. I'd honestly rather roll my own tools than use those. Well, the fact that it doesn't barely work on DJGPP anyways makes that almost unavoidable. > MinGW in DOS with HX... Interesting. How many functions are in > MSVCRT? I.e., would it be easy to port MinGW to DOS? I don't think the full MinGW environment works, but I've not tried. Some standalone tools (or those compiled by) do work. E.g. Oxford Oberon or TinyC (often needing HDPMI=32 or DPMILDR=136). BTW, TinyC had a big update recently. MSVCRT is a "known .DLL", originally (I think?) from MSVC 6. MinGW and TinyC use it, but OpenWatcom (thankfully) doesn't. It's very proprietary, so I'm not sure (at least in Express Editions) you can share it with anyone. (There are other .DLLs from other MS compilers.) It only supports C89 as (IIRC) MS still do not intend to support anything newer except via C++. Like I said, newer ReactOS .DLL doesn't work, but older 0.3.14 MSVCRT.DLL seems to work with HX, at least for the very few apps I tried. I don't know what "port MinGW to DOS" means, but I'm very very skeptical. > My first question to Louis is how could MinGW rebuild DJGPP > without POSIX support? CygWin has POSIX support. Presumably MinGW added a few POSIX stubs as GCC wouldn't run without such. > My second question is to Louis is why you're rebuilding version > 2.04? 2.04 doesn't work as well with DOS as 2.03. There are some > definate bugs with it, at least with MS-DOS v7.10. IIRC, 2.04 is > designed to work better in a Windows XP console ("dosbox") window, > not real-mode DOS. 2.04 (circa 2003) "mostly" works fine for everything I tested. Sure, there are some rare bugs, but they were fixed in CVS (not that I really tried that). The only problem with 2.04 is that it wasn't as heavily tested in all environments as 2.03p2. Plus, there's been no release manager nor major interest since it was always "good enough" for the main developers. At least, that's what little I recall understanding about it. I don't have anything against 2.03p2, but I'm not sure that's totally perfect either, for various minor reasons. > Rugxulo, I know I need to get an email account and get on "DOS > ain't dead forums"... No pressure! :-) I know you hate email, but perhaps GNU PG would help?? > But, until then, could you do me another > favor and let Japheth know I posted a patch for HIMEMX to > comp.os.msdos.programmer? It supports multiple 001 E820h memory > blocks above 1MB. If you recall, you posted a message or two there > for me previously discussing the issue. Sure, but keep in mind that Japheth long ago disclaimed any hold over HimemX, so he's not really a maintainer (anymore, if ever). IIRC, he even refused the simple "jmp $+2" 386 patch. :-( Though worst case, I'll just try to mirror your patch to iBiblio. > If you do, thanks and sorry for the trouble... No trouble, but my usefulness is limited. But I've gone ahead and posted there, so we'll see what he says.