Greg Haerr writes:
>
> On Thursday, June 03, 1999 7:27 PM, Alan Cox [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> : > This brings up my wishlist again, that we should have bcc compiler
> : > support for medium and large models for x86. Al Ridoch doesn't want to
> : > move to supporting the _far keyword. I think that it would buy us alot,
>especially
> : > if we're going to stick with old outdated processors like the 8086.
> :
> : Al is right however. Going to far screws you up totally on things like swapping
> : and makes fork truely horrible. Don't go that way except on a 286
> :
> :
> Good points. If we stayed restricted to large code segments only, however,
> then we could run much larger programs (like the bcc compiler, for one),
> if we restricted ourselves to the following:
I have not yet come across something I wanted to port that had too large
a code segment, but enough data. Most programs don't port because they require
so much data. bcc output is very compact.
>
> o Dont' swap code that has the multi-code segment bit set in the exe hdr.
> (This isn't that big a deal, especially if it lets us run real programs...)
>
> o Fork isn't a problem if we use shared code segments, and don't have
> far data pointers.
We do currently share code segments very effectively.
Al
