On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Laight wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:23:53PM -0500, King InuYasha wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, at the moment it really is the best we have. AFAIK, there
> > isn't any other FOSS compiler that can build 16-bit DOS/Win16
> applications.
> > Unless someo
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:23:53PM -0500, King InuYasha wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, at the moment it really is the best we have. AFAIK, there
> isn't any other FOSS compiler that can build 16-bit DOS/Win16 applications.
> Unless someone was actually willing to figure out how to make GCC be able to
>
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>
> I wonder how bad is it to port some old version of djgpp forward?
> ( http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/history.html ) - it is a fork of gcc as far
> as I see and did support 16-bit code generation at one time?
>
>
>
It is a fork of GCC, but as
I wonder how bad is it to port some old version of djgpp forward?
( http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/history.html ) - it is a fork of gcc as far as I
see and did support 16-bit code generation at one time?
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/28 Austin English :
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, King InuYasha
> wrote:
>
> >> What is wrong with OpenWatcom? It is an open source development
> toolchain,
> >> with experimental linux binaries, yes, but they do work the last
2009/3/28 Austin English :
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, King InuYasha wrote:
>> What is wrong with OpenWatcom? It is an open source development toolchain,
>> with experimental linux binaries, yes, but they do work the last time I
>> checked (which was when 1.8 release came out).
> It's not
--- On Sat, 28/3/09, Austin English wrote:
> > I don't know how well native linux openwatcom works as
> a cross-compiler, however, but that probably doesn't matter
> for this discussion?
>
> Quite the opposite, that's exactly what we WANT to use.
Given that 1) win32 openwatcom works, 2) presum
--- On Sat, 28/3/09, Austin English wrote:
> It's also not known how well it works under Linux. There
> was talk
> about detecting if a user has it installed, then compiling
> 16 bit code
> in that case, but no one's worked to see if OpenWatcom
> works when
> ran/installed natively.
But win32 o
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>
> --- On Sat, 28/3/09, Austin English wrote:
>
>> It's also not known how well it works under Linux. There
>> was talk
>> about detecting if a user has it installed, then compiling
>> 16 bit code
>> in that case, but no one's worked to see i
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, King InuYasha wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday 22 March 2009 04:00:16 Austin English wrote:
>> > Wine supports 16 bit apps, just not as well as 32-bit. Dan had an
>> > intern work on a 16 bit test suite
>> > (http://c
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Sunday 22 March 2009 04:00:16 Austin English wrote:
> > Wine supports 16 bit apps, just not as well as 32-bit. Dan had an
> > intern work on a 16 bit test suite
> > (http://code.google.com/p/win16test/), which can be used to test 16
> >
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:34:03AM +1100, Ben Klein wrote:
> Oops, missed reply-to-all.
>
> 2009/3/22 Tijl Coosemans :
> > I was reading through binutils documentation and came across this.
> > Maybe it can be used to compile 16 bit tests.
> >
> > 3.2.4. 16-bit mode
> > Binutils (2.9.1.0.25+) now
Am Sonntag, den 22.03.2009, 11:46 +0100 schrieb Tijl Coosemans:
> On Sunday 22 March 2009 04:00:16 Austin English wrote:
> > Wine supports 16 bit apps, just not as well as 32-bit. Dan had an
> > intern work on a 16 bit test suite
> > (http://code.google.com/p/win16test/), which can be used to test
On Sunday 22 March 2009 04:00:16 Austin English wrote:
> Wine supports 16 bit apps, just not as well as 32-bit. Dan had an
> intern work on a 16 bit test suite
> (http://code.google.com/p/win16test/), which can be used to test 16
> bit support, fwiw.
Yes, this is what I meant to refer to. AFAIK th
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:28 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
> Ben Klein wrote:
>> Oops, missed reply-to-all.
>>
>> 2009/3/22 Tijl Coosemans :
>>
>>> I was reading through binutils documentation and came across this.
>>> Maybe it can be used to compile 16 bit tests.
>>>
>>> 3.2.4. 16-bit mode
>>> Binuti
2009/3/22 James McKenzie :
> Ben Klein wrote:
>> Oops, missed reply-to-all.
>>
>> 2009/3/22 Tijl Coosemans :
>>
>>> I was reading through binutils documentation and came across this.
>>> Maybe it can be used to compile 16 bit tests.
>>>
>>> 3.2.4. 16-bit mode
>>> Binutils (2.9.1.0.25+) now fully su
Ben Klein wrote:
> Oops, missed reply-to-all.
>
> 2009/3/22 Tijl Coosemans :
>
>> I was reading through binutils documentation and came across this.
>> Maybe it can be used to compile 16 bit tests.
>>
>> 3.2.4. 16-bit mode
>> Binutils (2.9.1.0.25+) now fully support 16-bit mode (registers and
>>
Oops, missed reply-to-all.
2009/3/22 Tijl Coosemans :
> I was reading through binutils documentation and came across this.
> Maybe it can be used to compile 16 bit tests.
>
> 3.2.4. 16-bit mode
> Binutils (2.9.1.0.25+) now fully support 16-bit mode (registers and
> addressing) on i386 PCs. Use .co
I was reading through binutils documentation and came across this.
Maybe it can be used to compile 16 bit tests.
3.2.4. 16-bit mode
Binutils (2.9.1.0.25+) now fully support 16-bit mode (registers and
addressing) on i386 PCs. Use .code16 and .code32 to switch between
assembly modes.
Also, a neat t
19 matches
Mail list logo
