Luke writes:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, David Murn wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> >
> > > The issue here is that the size of the libc.a file itself is > 512k, so
> > > the filesystem won't let ld86 read it...
> >
> > It is? I dunno where you got your libc.a fro
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Luke (boo) Farrar wrote:
> bcc -0 -O -ansi -s -ansi fsck.c -o fsck -H
> undefined symbol: _S_ISSOCK
>
> It would be nice as a hard disk filing system is fairly useless without
> it.
Well, ISSOCK is checking if stat() was done on a socket. Not much use at
all until the
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, David Murn wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
>
> > The issue here is that the size of the libc.a file itself is > 512k, so
> > the filesystem won't let ld86 read it...
>
> It is? I dunno where you got your libc.a from, but mine is 82k. libc
> under Li
On Wednesday, July 14, 1999 10:41 AM, David Murn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
: On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
:
: > The issue here is that the size of the libc.a file itself is > 512k, so
: > the filesystem won't let ld86 read it...
:
: It is? I dunno where you got your libc.a
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> The issue here is that the size of the libc.a file itself is > 512k, so
> the filesystem won't let ld86 read it...
It is? I dunno where you got your libc.a from, but mine is 82k. libc
under Linux is > 512k, but under ELKS, it's tiny.
Davey
: Not quite. I didn't actually know about the 512k limit, but greg says
: it's there. libc is tiny, as all ELKS programs are statically linked, so
: libc+program must be less than 64k.
:
The issue here is that the size of the libc.a file itself is > 512k, so
the filesystem won't let ld
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Luke (boo) Farrar wrote:
> Do we still have the 512k file size limit?
>
> I thought that libc was bigger than this or something, and that was one of
> the limiting factors on a self hosted bcc.
Not quite. I didn't actually know about the 512k limit, but greg says
it's the
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> : I agree, but of late I've had little enthusiasm to try and trim the fat
> : off the larger areas of the code.
>
> Hmm.. I haven't got to that yet. What other areas are bloated?
I basically did an: ls -lS `find -name *.a` to find all the lar
: Do we still have the 512k file size limit?
Yep. But I'll fix it.
:
: I thought that libc was bigger than this or something, and that was one of
: the limiting factors on a self hosted bcc. Did I remember this wrong?
You're right. Its kinda funny that we could get the com
> > This is why elvis, as86, and many, many other large programs have never
> > run. Elks never let programs have > 32k data segments!
> > With this fix, I plan on self-hosting bcc and as86, which now will
> > run...
>
> The reason bcc wouldn't run was because it was too large (> 64k) to eve
:
: I agree, but of late I've had little enthusiasm to try and trim the fat
: off the larger areas of the code. In particular, the inode hashing code
: in fs (or is it specific to minixfs) is basically redundant. Firstly, we
: can do without hashing for a slight speed decrease. Also, the hashi
: Yep, it won't do anything. The only commands supported, are: m (color),
: s (save location), u (unsave location), A (up), B (down), C (right),
: D (left), K (clear EOL). Mainly because these functions were already
: existing in the dircon code so it was very easy to interface to them.
:
> email the patches for elks 0.77 and elkscmd 0.77.
: >
: > o Ported elvis to ELKS
:
: Is this based on the code that was in elkscmd?
Yep.
:
: > o changed all elkscmd srcs to use tcsetattr/tcgetattr instead of ioctl
:
: I previously held back from doing this to make the mi
Greg Haerr writes:
>
> Al,
> I spent a good portion of the weekend fixing quite a few ELKS
> bugs, trying to get a good visual editor running. It seems I have succeeded.
> Following is the list of fixes that I have performed. I will attach in the next
> email the patches for elks 0.77 and
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> Killed your baby? Why, it seems this one died from neglect ;-)
> try typing ESC [ H on the console. Nothing happens.
Yep, it won't do anything. The only commands supported, are: m (color),
s (save location), u (unsave location), A (up), B (down),
: You killed my baby?? Exactly how has it stopped working? It's not a very
: complete implementation, only half-a-dozen ANSI commands are supported.
Killed your baby? Why, it seems this one died from neglect ;-)
try typing ESC [ H on the console. Nothing happens.
:
: > o added
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, David Murn wrote:
> The reason bcc wouldn't run was because it was too large (> 64k) to even
> link. This is where the fat has to be trimmed first, before anyone even
> starts to worry about running it. I've wondered if it's possible to use
> temporary files in some way, an
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> BTW, the ansi elks console doesn't work. I can rewrite it quickly if
> nobody minds.
You killed my baby?? Exactly how has it stopped working? It's not a very
complete implementation, only half-a-dozen ANSI commands are supported.
> o added TERM=
Al,
I spent a good portion of the weekend fixing quite a few ELKS
bugs, trying to get a good visual editor running. It seems I have succeeded.
Following is the list of fixes that I have performed. I will attach in the next
email the patches for elks 0.77 and elkscmd 0.77.
o Po
19 matches
Mail list logo
