Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:17:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Phaneuf Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com cc: opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Usage of directory entries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Mark Habersack wrote: > > Gone as we are to using Linux code, how 'bout ELF? Maybe COFF, but I don't > > like this format much... Except for DJGPP, I think it is mostly used in > > commercial Unices... Not sure about that. ELF should be fine. But if I > But ELF is hardly documented. Sure, we can use BFD library, but no BFD > maintainer works on/with DOS! Have you seen the doc on COFF? Hardly more documented than ELF... We could learn a few things by looking at libelf.so sources, what do you think? :-) > > FreeDOS takes great pains in being a 8086+ OS and uses a free C compiler > > that actually comes with the OS... Maybe look that way? Heard the language > > is rather minimal (I think it is called Micro-C), has been described like > I heard also about LCC and BCC - has anyone used them? Heard about LCC but didn't use it. Isn't BCC the Borland C Compiler? ;-) (if not, didn't hear about it) > > a "structured assembler"... (though I think C is just that! ;-) ) Does > > 16-bit real mode... But isn't OpenDOS going to be modern and everything? > > The initial version being 16-bit because NW-DOS 7 was, but boldly going > > where no DOS has gone before? So probably 386 instructions are ok. > But what about all those XT/AT network terminals in use? Yes, you're right... But I do think it should split off into OpenDOS/16 and OpenDOS/32, with of course as much shared code between them, but with OpenDOS/16 working on a XT and OpenDOS/32 pushing a i386 as close to the edge as possible! Pierre Phaneuf