[M3devel] target naming again..DJGPP?

[Dragiša Durić]

djgpp being piece of archaeology, it surely is interesting. Would be
much better to invest time in 64bit ports these days, though :).

dd

On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 21:59 +0000, Jay wrote:
> Does anyone else find the idea of a DJGPP port "interesting"?
>  
> 
> I think I'll go ahead and do it. I know its useless but I find it
> "interesting".
> A few things will come before it.
>  
> 
> The DJGPP runtime appears to have the adequate support for
> alarm/setitimer,
> so it /should/ be fairly easy.
> I've already demonstrated to myself cooperating threading, and
> alarm/setitimer
> can be used for preemption, with the user posix threads.
> The easy work I did pruning down NT386GNU's *.i3 file to a minimum
> will be useful.
>  
> 
> What to call it?
>  
> 
> Some combination of
>  
> 
> (x86 or 386 or i386) and (DOS or MSDOS) and (DJGPP and/or GNU)?
>  
> 
>  DJGPP 
>  MSDOS 
>  X86_MSDOS 
>  X86_DJGPP 
>  X86_MSDOS_DJGPP 
>  X86_MSDOS_DJGPP_GNU  
>  X86_MSDOS_GNU 
> 
>  
> It really is reasonable to have a quadruple sometimes.
>  architecture-operatingsystem-C runtime-toolset 
> though C runtime doesn't very often.
> 
>  
> ?I don't want to open the whole can of worms, just need a name for
> DJGPP.
> 
>  
> DJGPP and MSDOS are fairly unambiguous here..but...
> Open Watcom is also a viable runtime/toolset.
> Maybe fit into the naming.
>  X86_MSDOS_WATCOM 
>  X86_MSDOS_GNU 
>  X86_MSDOS_DJGPP  
> 
>  
> Open Watcom really puts a monkey wrench into it.
> X86_OPENWATCOM is among the most ambiguous hypothetical names, because
> OpenWatcom targets
> a bajillion x86 variants (and even made progress toward Alpha and
> PowerPC).
> Open Watcom is actively developed and targets at least:
>  16 bit real mode MS-DOS
>  32 bit protected mode MS-DOS 
>  16 bit Windows 3.1 (enhanced mode?) 
>  32 bit code in 16 bit Windows 
>  32 bit protected mode Windows (NT) 
>  32 bit protected mode OS/2 
>   other OS/2 variants? 16 bit? Or only 16 bit? 
>  Novell Netware I believe! 
>  x86 Linux
> 
> or just
>  DJGPP
>  MSDOS_OPENWATCOM 
> or
> 
>  MSDOS_DJGPP
>  MSDOS_OPENWATCOM 
> 
> MSDOS implies 32 bit x86. ?
>  
>  
> PERHAPS some more names should be settled for some actual practical
> targets that might come up soon, to guide the discussion? 
>  
>  X86_SOLARIS ? 
>  AMD64_SOLARIS ? 
>  SPARC64_SOLARIS ?
> Solaris always has two toolsets though, ? Sun and GNU?
>   AMD64_DARWIN ? 
>   PPC64_DARWIN ? (obsolete before it ever caught on?) 
>   PPC64_AIX ? (this exists as an OS, right?) 
>  AMD64_NT -- ambiguous ? 
>  AMD64_NT_GNU ? 
>  AMD64_NT_MINGNU ? -- this toolset is already out there  
>  AMD64_NT_CYGWIN ? -- This isn't likely, Cygwin is very x86-specific 
>  AMD64_LINUX ? 
>  IA64_VMS ?
>  IA64_LINUX ?
>    two or more toolsets, right?  GCC, Intel, SGI?
>   IA64_LINUX_GNU  ?
>   IA64_LINUX_INTEL  ?
>   IA64_LINUX_SGI  ?
>  
>  
> I'm skeptical there will be any IA64 ports, but I expect there will be
> AMD64.
> (I have seen IA64 for around $500 on eBay, tempting, for a port..)
>  
>  
> And consider LLVM in the naming exercise? As a toolset, right?
>   AMD64_LINUX_GNU 
>   AMD64_LINUX_LLVM ? 
> 
>  
> Are people wedded to "I386" instead of "x86"?
> To indicate clearly it isn't 286 and the ilk?
>  
> 
> I am somewhat wedded to "AMD64", though other names include "X64" and
> X86-64.
> X86-64 is too long, and the dash would probably go away, X8664,
> getting to be a long run of gibberish numbers.
> X64...is that less than X86? :)
> 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).
>  
>  
> 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...
> Intel64 != Intel Architecture 64.
> Admittedly they were kind of stuck.
>  
>  
>  - Jay
>  
-- 
Dragiša Durić <dragisha at m3w.org>