Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-12 Thread Antony Gordon
Where is the code? You probably just need some #defines On Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 5:07 PM sparky4 wrote: > i got the wattcp 16 version and... > > it is borland C ... > > > crap!! > > so much problems!! > > please help! > > i need the makefiles to do their jobs! > > > > -- > View

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-09 Thread Louis Santillan
Ummm...FreeDOS Software List for WatTCP[0] points to the FTP site [1]. [0] http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp [1] http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/net/wattcp/ On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:45 AM, sparky4 wrote: > link me a 16 bit version of wattcp >

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-09 Thread sparky4
link me a 16 bit version of wattcp -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FDNPKG16-port-tp23398p23580.html Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-09 Thread sparky4
ok i will stick to it then and see if a 16 bit version exsists -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FDNPKG16-port-tp23398p23578.html Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-07 Thread Michael Brutman
I would continue to use WatTCP too. The real benefit of your work will be in enabling 16 bit machines to use fdnpkg. Changing stacks should not be required unless 16 bit WatTCP is broken. On Oct 6, 2015 15:05, "Steve Nickolas" wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, sparky4 wrote: > >

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-06 Thread sparky4
ah ok!! i am now stuck at the converting the net code from wattcp to mtcp On 10/06/2015 11:38 AM, Mateusz Viste-4 [via FreeDOS] wrote: > On 06/10/2015 17:49, sparky4 wrote: > > Yeah thats what i am doing and apparently there is no ungz function > in watcom > > C > > Of course there isn't,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-06 Thread Steve Nickolas
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, sparky4 wrote: > ah ok!! > > i am now stuck at the converting the net code from wattcp to mtcp Why not leave it WatTCP? WatTCP supports 16-bit too. -uso. --

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-06 Thread Rugxulo
Hi, On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On 06/10/2015 17:49, sparky4 wrote: >> >> Yeah thats what i am doing and apparently there is no ungz function in watcom >> C > > Of course there isn't, since that's a function I wrote myself. It's a > core part of

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-06 Thread sparky4
Yeah thats what i am doing and apparently there is no ungz function in watcom C i just want it to compile 1st then i will debug the crap out of it -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FDNPKG16-port-tp23398p23557.html Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-10-06 Thread Mateusz Viste
On 06/10/2015 17:49, sparky4 wrote: > Yeah thats what i am doing and apparently there is no ungz function in watcom > C Of course there isn't, since that's a function I wrote myself. It's a core part of fdnpkg. see libgz.c. Mateusz

[Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-09-21 Thread sparky4
I am currently porting fdnpkg to 16 bit now~ I need your help!! the bloody networking stuff.. mtcp i will most likely use ^^ http://4ch.mooo.com/16/fdnpkg16.git/ the git repo is here ^^ -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FDNPKG16-port-tp23398.html Sent from

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-09-21 Thread Antony Gordon
Does the TCP stack work in 16-bit? If not, you'd probably have to build it to support loading packages from floppy disks or CDs. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 3:08 PM Bruno FĂ©lix Rezende Ribeiro wrote: > Hello, sparky4! > > Em Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:07:17 -0700 (MST) > sparky4

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDNPKG16 port!

2015-09-21 Thread Michael Brutman
mTCP won't be the problem - it is already 16 bit. The problem is that FDNPKG is designed with a 32 bit address space as a base assumption. The data structures are being stored in memory and there is an assumption that the size of the data structures will be quite large. I've discussed this with