Re: [Freedos-kernel] Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec

[tom ehlert]

Hello Eric,

 BC xx wouldn't have worked
 after my HMA additions.
 I hope you make that clear somewhere. Otherwise, people try to use BC...
I was talking about history; at these times it simply couldn't compile
with any BC.

 It would be helpful to have some port MASM -- NASM document.
 Two solutions: Use Arrowsoft ASM (freeware). It supports not-too-complex
 MASM/TASM files. Good for the existing code base.
what 'existing' source base ?
there's no MASM sources around.
and noone cares enough to port TASM-NASM, unless you DO IT YOURSELF.


 And I really hope that it will be possible to compile the kernel with Turbo
 C in the near future.
this sentence disqualifies you as an even semi serous contributor to
the kernel list. please go away.

 is it something like the bible, or should it be something
 reflecting (intended) reality ?

 I suggest that it describes reality, but that original intentions are
 not removed but just marked as obsoleted.

I think, that a spec should describe the projects intention.
and it's certainly not the kernels intention to be compilable with any
compiler.
the intention is to build a MSDOS compatible kernel; use the
approriate tools (free if possible)

 Config sys compatibility: For ME, non-menued (DOS 5?) config sys is
 fine, and I am not worried by the fact that our menu language is
 different. Might be a point which is open for discussion.
it's not open for discussion. it's open for PROGRAMMING.

 Are you sure that there can be up to 64 STACKS? I thought only 8..16?
it makes only sense for the number of hardware interrupts (8..16)

 Okay for me to drop SETVER.
because you don't understand it's purpose (your implementation implies
that at least)


 Still GPL is preferred, of course :-).
I'm pissed by GPL - for known reasons.

tom




---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson  Lucent use to deliver
higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel

Re: [Freedos-kernel] Re: Reference compiler / changing the spec

[Jim Hall]

is it something like the bible, or should it be something
reflecting (intended) reality ?


I suggest that it describes reality, but that original intentions are
not removed but just marked as obsoleted.


I think, that a spec should describe the projects intention.
and it's certainly not the kernels intention to be compilable with any
compiler.
the intention is to build a MSDOS compatible kernel; use the
approriate tools (free if possible)
Yes.  See my other message in the original thread:

The original intent was to have the Spec reflect what people actually 
_use_ so that when a new developer comes into the project, he/she will 
know what tools to use when contributing to FreeDOS (such as OW for C 
compiler, etc.)

When the Spec was first written, no open tools (suitable for 16bit 
deployment) were available.  However, pretty much everyone on the 
FreeDOS lists had (or was already using) TurboC or Borland C, so TC/BC 
were listed as the standard.  Same thing for assembly, except that's 
changed now too.

I'll try to get all of fd-doc updated very soon now.  The Spec will be 
my first goal.

-jh

--
_
This email message has been automatically encrypted using ROT-26.
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson  Lucent use to deliver
higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
___
Freedos-kernel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel