<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>Does anyone else find the idea of a DJGPP port "interesting"?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>I think I'll go ahead and do it. I know its useless but I find it "interesting".<BR>A few things will come before it.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>The DJGPP runtime appears to have the adequate support for alarm/setitimer,<BR>so it /should/ be fairly easy.<BR>I've already demonstrated to myself cooperating threading, and alarm/setitimer<BR>
can be used for preemption, with the user posix threads.<BR>
The easy work I did pruning down NT386GNU's *.i3 file to a minimum will be useful.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>What to call it?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Some combination of<BR>
<BR>
<BR>(x86 or 386 or i386) and (DOS or MSDOS) and (DJGPP and/or GNU)?<BR>
<BR>
<BR> DJGPP <BR> MSDOS <BR> X86_MSDOS <BR> X86_DJGPP <BR> X86_MSDOS_DJGPP <BR> X86_MSDOS_DJGPP_GNU <BR> X86_MSDOS_GNU <BR>
<BR> <BR>
It really is reasonable to have a quadruple sometimes.<BR> architecture-operatingsystem-C runtime-toolset <BR>
though C runtime doesn't very often.<BR>
<BR> <BR>
?I don't want to open the whole can of worms, just need a name for DJGPP.<BR>
<BR> <BR>
DJGPP and MSDOS are fairly unambiguous here..but...<BR>Open Watcom is also a viable runtime/toolset.<BR>Maybe fit into the naming.<BR>
X86_MSDOS_WATCOM <BR> X86_MSDOS_GNU <BR> X86_MSDOS_DJGPP <BR><BR>
<BR>
Open Watcom really puts a monkey wrench into it.<BR>X86_OPENWATCOM is among the most ambiguous hypothetical names, because OpenWatcom targets<BR>a bajillion x86 variants (and even made progress toward Alpha and PowerPC).<BR>Open Watcom is actively developed and targets at least:<BR> 16 bit real mode MS-DOS<BR> 32 bit protected mode MS-DOS <BR> 16 bit Windows 3.1 (enhanced mode?) <BR> 32 bit code in 16 bit Windows <BR> 32 bit protected mode Windows (NT) <BR> 32 bit protected mode OS/2 <BR> other OS/2 variants? 16 bit? Or only 16 bit? <BR> Novell Netware I believe! <BR> x86 Linux<BR>
<BR>or just<BR> DJGPP<BR> MSDOS_OPENWATCOM <BR>
or<BR>
<BR> MSDOS_DJGPP<BR> MSDOS_OPENWATCOM <BR>
<BR>MSDOS implies 32 bit x86. ?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
PERHAPS some more names should be settled for some actual practical targets that might come up soon, to guide the discussion? <BR>
<BR>
X86_SOLARIS ? <BR>
AMD64_SOLARIS ? <BR>
SPARC64_SOLARIS ?<BR>
Solaris always has two toolsets though, ? Sun and GNU?<BR>
AMD64_DARWIN ? <BR>
PPC64_DARWIN ? (obsolete before it ever caught on?) <BR>
PPC64_AIX ? (this exists as an OS, right?) <BR>
AMD64_NT -- ambiguous ? <BR>
AMD64_NT_GNU ? <BR>
AMD64_NT_MINGNU ? -- this toolset is already out there <BR>
AMD64_NT_CYGWIN ? -- This isn't likely, Cygwin is very x86-specific <BR>
AMD64_LINUX ? <BR>
IA64_VMS ?<BR>
IA64_LINUX ?<BR>
two or more toolsets, right? GCC, Intel, SGI?<BR>
IA64_LINUX_GNU ?<BR>
IA64_LINUX_INTEL ?<BR>
IA64_LINUX_SGI ?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I'm skeptical there will be any IA64 ports, but I expect there will be AMD64.<BR>
(I have seen IA64 for around $500 on eBay, tempting, for a port..)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And consider LLVM in the naming exercise? As a toolset, right?<BR>
AMD64_LINUX_GNU <BR>
AMD64_LINUX_LLVM ? <BR><BR>
<BR>
Are people wedded to "I386" instead of "x86"?<BR>
To indicate clearly it isn't 286 and the ilk?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>I am somewhat wedded to "AMD64", though other names include "X64" and X86-64.<BR>
X86-64 is too long, and the dash would probably go away, X8664, getting to be a long run of gibberish numbers.<BR>
X64...is that less than X86? :)<BR>
AMD64 is the value of %PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE% on NT and the install directory name on the pre-Vista CDs (along with i386), and it is available as an #ifdef (_AMD64_, _M_AMD64).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Intel was calling it EM64T, but that gone away in favor of Intel64, to not be confused with IA64, which is Itanium, stands for Intel Architecture 64 hm...<BR>
Intel64 != Intel Architecture 64.<BR>
Admittedly they were kind of stuck.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- Jay<BR>
<BR></body>
</html>