Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:27:22 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mark Habersack <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To: grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
To: pierre AT tycho DOT com
cc: opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Usage of directory entries
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970417091743.27086D-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.970418152630.22800E-100000@hoth.amu.edu.pl>
Organization: PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

> >> Again, that's not the size what matters. And I cannot use DJGPP for the
> >> same reason as stated above.
> > Hmm... We definately need a standard set of compilers :)
> 
> And from what I've heard, the OpenDOS sources needs a gazillion compilers
> to build... Yes, definitely, we'd need some standard free compilers! I
> don't know of good 16-bit C compilers for free (in the GPL sense), but for
> assembler we could use NASM like Mark is already doing. One of the first
NASM should gain some features before it becomes a really powerful assembler -
namely macro support!

> thing that should be done when the OpenDOS sources are done would be to
> convert all the assembler sources we can find to NASM. Whew! Most of the
> DOS internals are in asm, so I guess there is a lot of code to translate!
But the ASM formats are really weird in DOS