Re: NOS for DJGPP...
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: NOS for DJGPP...
- From: email@example.com (Alan Cox)
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 10:42:34 +0100 (BST)
- 6: 13:00 am
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> from "Mike Bilow" at Apr 26, 95 0
> issues such as instruction ordering for the advanced CPUs through the Pentium.
> GCC is probably almost comparable in code quality to Watcom, although it is a
> strictly 32-bit code generator, and 32-bit code is much easier to optimize wit
> a compiler than 16-bit code.
Gcc 2.6.3 produces pretty good 386 code, 2.6.3i the pentium 'unofficial'
release is even better. Watcom is better still 8). Gcc is capable of optimising
16 bit (and even 8bit - see the 68HC11 gcc) but nobody has done gcc with a
DOS 16 bit target.
> There will also be serious side effects as a result of running NOS under a DPM
> DOS extender, and some of these are of major importance. For example, most
> Clarkson Packet drivers will no longer operate with NOS. It is possible to
> rewrite a packet driver to work under a DOS extender, just as it is possible t
> rewrite a packet driver to work under Windows. In fact, many of the Windows
No need. The support is already include with the DJGPP wattcp library.