See inline comments.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Rugxulo <> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Louis Santillan <>
> wrote:
> >
> > Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed such that 486+ compiles.  Read
> > ( 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.
> 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 thing, and do it well.

> Though, again, call me cynical, but outside of just reordering
> instructions, I don't think this will speed up anything much. Even
> then it might just be too trivial. (This is a very difficult and
> arcane skill. It's hard to accuse compilers of being dumb when it's an
> endless void.) You'll probably get much faster speeds just from using
> select (386+) software:  UIDE, RDISK, XMGR, HDPMI32, etc.

You're probably right about targeting the tools.

> In fact, I know this is far from exhaustive, but one of the only
> things I remember people complaining about (re: speed) was "COPY", but
> that's the shell, not the kernel.


> So in mkfiles\ I added some code to add -6-onaxlkh-ei (for 686).
> > This will reorder instruction significantly and replace some call nears
> with
> > jmps in a comparison of 386 timed code vs. 686 timed code.  Code is
> larger
> > on the 686 side.
> Larger before or after UPX?


> > So far, not very impressed with OW 1.9's optimizer. Rather minimal
> improvements.
> You mean compared to, what, 1.8? Of course I don't personally expect
> any improvements, honestly. Somebody would have to really care, and
> even a weirdo like me has to admit there is little benefit (outside of
> just scratching an itch) as cpus change too fast.

True.  But flipping switches and running basic benchmarks is easy.

> > Anybody play with BCC 5.5 & HX-DOS recently?
> That's barely newer than Watcom 11.0, so I doubt it's much better, but
> who knows. IIRC, it did support 586, but I don't have it installed
> (and too lazy to re-sign up at Embarcadero). BTW, I assume you know it
> doesn't support 16-bit (nor any) DOS output, and thus can't compile
> the kernel. Sure, you can use WDOSX, but honestly, it's easier just to
> use native DOS tools, e.g. DJGPP (4.8.0 ftw!) or OpenWatcom.

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
2.04?).  I must of misread BCC 5.5 for 4.5.2.  I used to have 4.5.2 way
back when.  I'll need to try to find it.
Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET
Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost.
Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to