Dear Louis,
a few points
a) the FreeDOS project isn't very interested in a BC5 compiled
kernel because BC5 isn't freely available/open source;
I also doubt the output of BC5 will be significant better then the OW
output.
feel free to experiment, but don't expect us to be excited ;)
So,
So, something in the make files/build files is skipping building a concrete
GLOBAL for ReturnAnyDosVersionExpected for BC5. There's a MAIN define
checked but the build process doesn't seem to get defined anywhere. :/
Need to do more digging.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Louis Santillan
BC5 in my hands in 5 days for $35 shipped from Canada.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com wrote:
So I bought a shrink wrapped copy of BC5 off ebay today. Should be in my
hands in 7-10 days. :D
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Louis Santillan
So I bought a shrink wrapped copy of BC5 off ebay today. Should be in my
hands in 7-10 days. :D
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Tom Ehlert t...@drivesnapshot.de wrote:
Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
[SNIP]
I'm excited by GCC 4.8.x coming to DJGPP. I just have questions I need
to
answer for myself about it's 2.04 beta incompatibilities with 2.03 (like,
Whats the right way to install 2.04?, What needs to be recompiled for
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Tom Ehlert t...@drivesnapshot.de wrote:
Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed such that 486+ compiles. Read
(
ftp://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/manuals/current/cguide.pdf) and
sections
2.3.x 3.5. Enlightening and disappointing. There does not seem
Hi,
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think wcc.exe was ever meant to output 32-bit code. Granted,
as mentioned previously, it will do some things (movsx), but
apparently it
I don't think wcc.exe was ever meant to output 32-bit code. Granted,
as mentioned previously, it will do some things (movsx), but
apparently it doesn't use the extended 32-bit registers.
That's the most disappointing part. As expensive as Watcom was, I was
expecting it do this kind of
Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed such that 486+ compiles. Read (
ftp://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/manuals/current/cguide.pdf) and sections
2.3.x 3.5. Enlightening and disappointing. There does not seem to be a
way to get 32-bit instructions out of wcc as Tom had mentioned. 3.5
Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed such that 486+ compiles. Read (
ftp://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/manuals/current/cguide.pdf) and sections
2.3.x 3.5. Enlightening and disappointing. There does not seem to be a
way to get 32-bit instructions out of wcc as Tom had mentioned. 3.5
Hi,
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com wrote:
Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed such that 486+ compiles. Read
(ftp://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/manuals/current/cguide.pdf) and sections
2.3.x 3.5. Enlightening and disappointing. There does not seem
See inline comments.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com
wrote:
Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed such that 486+ compiles. Read
Alright, here we go.
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/386DIS.ZIP
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/686DIS.ZIP
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/PATCHES.ZIP
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/kernels.zip
The *DIS files are a zip of kernel\*.lst after doing
Hallo Herr Louis Santillan,
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/386DIS.ZIP
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/686DIS.ZIP
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/PATCHES.ZIP
https://sites.google.com/site/lpsantil/Home/kernels.zip
the differenz is an empty memdisk.lst
I agree with you. But, for somethings, I can hope that the kernel being
compiled with the understanding with dual integer pipelines (586) and 10
stage pipelines instead of 5 (686 vs. 586) could have some performance
benefits at least for integer operations.
-L
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:50 PM,
Hoi Louis,
please explain the hack / patch: Is the only thing that
you changed that the kernel is compiled for those CPUs?
Are there actually any differences between them? I can
imagine that OpenWatcom makes 186 and 286 the same and
everything above 386 the same. Unless the kernel would
contain
Hi,
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote:
please explain the hack / patch: Is the only thing that
you changed that the kernel is compiled for those CPUs?
Are there actually any differences between them? I can
imagine that OpenWatcom makes 186 and 286 the same
There is one thint that I am aware of, and I use in my OpenWatcom
programs: In a 586 execution will be faster if the instructions are
rearanged, but still using only 386 instructions...
Alain
Em 03-05-2013 03:48, Eric Auer escreveu:
Hoi Louis,
please explain the hack / patch: Is the only
I hacked the 2041 kernel batch and make files included on the FD 1.1 iso to
allow the kernel to be built by OpenWatcom as 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486,
586, or 686. The resulting 686 kernel boots fine in VirtualBox 4.2.12 in
OSX 10.8.3 on my 2012 Mac Book Air 13 4GB. The resulting kernel is a few
Just because you select pentium level ode on the compiler doesn't necessary
mean that the source code will use 586 opcode Afaik
On Thursday, May 2, 2013, Louis Santillan wrote:
I hacked the 2041 kernel batch and make files included on the FD 1.1 iso
to allow the kernel to be built by
20 matches
Mail list logo
