I apologize for mis-posting to fd-user previously.

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Tom Ehlert <t...@drivesnapshot.de> wrote:

> 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 ;)

I'm not sure how you can say the FreeDOS project isn't interested in a BC5
kernel.  The BC5 makefiles I found in the kernel sources I didn't write.
 Bart last worked on them 9 years ago.  Bit rotten for sure and OW became
usable in that time.  So yes, priorities change, but I'm taking the posted
FreeDOS Roadmap, as goals and stretch goals for the project.  I read
(paraphrasing): built-in networking, built-in USB, integrated DPMI, 32-bit
& 64-bit support, device driver imports, automated regression testing. I've
done a couple of simple tests and I am getting 32-bit register code from my
copy of BC5.  The Roadmap is reason enough for me, personally, to continue
to 'experiment' as you say.  There's no way of getting 32-bit real mode
code from OW.  So for now, until someone teaches OW some new tricks, I'll
work with BC5.

> > 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. :/
> b) when trying to port the kernel to a new compiler, you should be
> able to fix such issues yourself. generate assembler output, see what
> is wrong. you will need this as the FreeDOS uses the
>  'interesting memory model (TM)'

Again, I'm not doing any porting.  And I do intend to work this issue.
 However, software development, like many human endeavors, is best done
collaboratively & socially, IMO.  If someone in the last 9 years has
compiled the kernel with BC5, they might have tips for me.  Heck, I
remember when the kernel was TASM/BC only, and only a select few could
afford to contribute.  I advocated back then (almost 15 years ago) for
porting to open tools.  I'm glad the early FreeCOM/Kernel developers had
made the effort to port to open tools.

> > Need to do more digging.
> c) no need to write 'need more digging' type of mails. use your
> twitter account for that.

I don't have a twitter account.  Feel free to filter emails from me to your
AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
Freedos-kernel mailing list

Reply via email to