Thanks Greg for your reply, On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 04:34:25PM -0600, Greg Haerr wrote: > > 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.
I see. > > Best regards and thanks for keeping the small and nice tools > > like Nano-X alive. > Let me know if I can help. Regretfully, I probably will not undertake reviving the development for 16 bits-systems. (For better or worse, nowadays it would hardly have any practical value) Otherwise, as I see it, platforms' limitations do not necessarily lead to limitations in fuctionality, but possibly to a more resource-efficient design. Having done a lot of production work on 16-bit systems before the 32-bit era I know they are quite capable. Thanks for your work on Nano-X. Rl --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: nanogui-unsubscr...@linuxhacker.org For additional commands, e-mail: nanogui-h...@linuxhacker.org
