> > Is there any working support for Nano-X under Minix2? > Just in case, support for any other 16-bit *nix?
It's been a long time, I think someone did a Minix port though. I added support for a bare-bones hardware version that ran on 80x86 processors in real mode. > > What I found is http://minix1.woodhull.com/microwin.html > which states that there was an unfinished effort > dated 2002-10-23. > > Was there any Minix-related work done after that? Probably not, but you should check the release notes to make sure. I think they're up on the ftp site outside the tarball. > > How much did Nano-X change since then to make the old effort relevant > regarding the current code? The biggest issue was that the code segment was limited to 64k, (and data to another 64k), and there were lots of optimizations as well as features not added in order to stay within that. Somewhere along the line I indicated that support would be ended for these systems (v0.86 or so?). After that, the architecture itself didn't really change, except that we never measured the size of the segments nor maintained backwards compatibility with those compilers. At some point we started taking advantage of the gcc compiler extensions and optimizations. > > Best regards and thanks for keeping the small and nice tools > like Nano-X alive. > Let me know if I can help. Regards, Greg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: nanogui-unsubscr...@linuxhacker.org For additional commands, e-mail: nanogui-h...@linuxhacker.org
