On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Travis Siegel wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: >> But I would seriously discourage the use of gcc, as that is not going to >> help to produce anything useful for DOS, as it by and large is a *ix >> based and targeting compiler, which has only be shoehorned rather >> crudely to produce code for DOS... > > Ok, good to know. I did use gcc for a (very) short time under dos, and > while it was a bit problematic to setup (paths had to be right, > environment variables had to be set) it did the job, but I wasn't trying > to do anything fancy with it, so don't know how well it handles > complicated stuff, and if it's as bad as indicated, then I guess I'll > stop recommending it. :-).
It has its uses. Problem is it forces you to a 386, locking out a lot of the computers that could benefit from FreeDOS. > But, the point of the sideline here is just to point out that dos > compilers aren't all that difficult to write, so if necessary, adapting > gcc or some other compiler and making it part of the freedos project > could be done. Not likely to be done mind you, but it could is all I'm > saying. Well, didn't DJ Delorie try to get GCC to target 8088 and give up because GCC really isn't suited to a segmented architecture? I think a similar reason is why there's a paucity of compilers targetting the 65C816, which is also a segmented architecture. > Regardless of what folks settle on, as the final guidelines, folks must > remember they are (mostly) only guidelines, and I'm sure exceptions can > and will be made given sufficient reasons to do so. For example if a program *needs* a 386 I don't see a reason to deny them using GCC, personally. > I agree whole heartedly that freedos should contain complete source for > it's programs (just like some linux distros do), but I'm also of the > opinion that free tools are preferable to commercial ones, (something > the majority of folks seem to agree with), but I'm also of the opinion > that opensource should be used where possible (an opinion not shared by > most it seems) and that's ok, it's only an opinion, and I have no > authority over the project in any way, so it remains my opinions only. > :) Same. > I think folks really should use what works for them, but if two things > work equally well, and one of them is opensource, then by all means, opt > for the opensource option. QFT > That's my take on it, and I'll shut up now, since I think this topic has > drifted somewhat from the original intent, and I'm really not out to > cause any trouble. I'd love to see the freedos project thrive, and even > the kernel evolve, so I'm always willing to lend a hand if desired. I > can help with the code reviews, as we did them where I worked several > years ago, since we were a cmm level 5 group, and code requirements were > pretty strict. I know nothing like that is necessary here, only stating > for the record I have experience, and am willing to assist if/when > wanted/needed. > > And, who knows, if I can think of something useful, perhaps I can > contribute to the freedos library too. I had some minor contributions years ago but have pretty much sat on the sidelines since then. -uso. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
