On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Andris Pavenis <andris.pave...@iki.fi> wrote: > On 12/12/2012 11:07 PM, David Brown wrote: >> >> On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote: >>> >>> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >>> >>>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why >>>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology? >>>> Seriously... >>> >>> >>> Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy :-) >> >> >> True enough. >> >>> But if no sign of 386 embedded chips, then reasonable to deprecate >>> I agree. >> >> >> I believe it has been a very long time since any manufacturers made a pure >> 386 chip. While I've >> never used x86 devices in any of my embedded systems, I believe there are >> two main classes of x86 >> embedded systems - those that use DOS (these still exist!), and those that >> aim to be a small PC >> with more modern x86 OS's. For the DOS systems, gcc does not matter, >> because it is not used - > > > It is used (http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/). However 386 is not really > supported any more for DJGPP > for rather long time. I do not have corresponding hardware to test on 386 > already for a long time > so I did not do any testing on 386 when I built recent GCC versions for > DJGPP for DJ FTP server > (last is gcc-4.7.2). As far as I remember read in mailing list 386 support > no more work (at least > C++ standard library). So I guess deprecating 386 could be not too large > loss.
Dosbox?
