X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Received: by 10.180.187.238 with SMTP id fv14mr5719057wic.0.1372233679287; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:01:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Rebuilding 2.04 from source Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 04:05:30 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: <713e6460-511d-4b27-a9a5-b07cc63fd02d AT googlegroups DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse AT aioe DOT org X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2001 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2001 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Bytes: 5614 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com wrote in message news:a5de500e-67da-4fc7-83d9-8842e04e8235 AT googlegroups DOT com... > 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