Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:57:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com
cc: opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Usage of directory entries
In-Reply-To: <m0wIAOP-000Fm3C@hn.planet.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970418145354.27261B-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Lorier wrote:

> >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
> >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!
> 
> What are they currently?  And how different is NASM? the difference of AT&T
> -> Intel? or is it just formatting? :)

They are in a lot of things! I think they used just about every assemblers
out there! ;-) I don't remember the list, but it was truly a LIST! NASM
main advantage is that its free and has quite a few features unlike many
free assemblers. It uses Intel syntax, yes.

Pierre Phaneuf