BC5 in my hands in 5 days for $35 shipped from Canada.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I bought a shrink wrapped copy of BC5 off ebay today. Should be in my
> hands in 7-10 days. :D
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Tom Ehlert <t...@drivesnapshot.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > Badly written ifdef in memdisk.asm. Fixed such that 486+ compiles.
>>> Read (
>>> > ftp://openwatcom.mirrors.pair.com/manuals/current/cguide.pdf) and
>>> sections
>>> > 2.3.x & 3.5. Enlightening and disappointing. There does not seem to
>>> be a
>>> > way to get 32-bit instructions out of wcc as Tom had mentioned. 3.5
>>> > recommends
>>> Watcom is open source; feel free to add 32 bit instructions to the 16
>>> bit compiler
>>>
>>>
>> I think recompiling with BC 5.0.2/4.5.2 would be a better option at this
>> point. I'd love to have the time to do this. :/
>>
>>
>>> > "The recommended options for generating the fastest 16-bit Intel code
>>> are:
>>> > Pentium Pro /onatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /6 /fpi87 /fp6
>>> > Pentium /onatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /5 /fpi87 /fp5
>>> > 486 /onatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /4 /fpi87 /fp3
>>> > 386 /onatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /3 /fpi87 /fp3
>>> > 286 /onatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /2 /fpi87 /fp2
>>> > 186 /onatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /1 /fpi87
>>> > 8086 /onatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /0 /fpi87"
>>>
>>> > -ot of -onatx & -zp8 contradict the original makefile's code -os & -zp1
>>> > (optimize execution time vs. executable size & align on byte vs.
>>> 8-byte,
>>> > respectively). Also, the -fp*'s opts don't apply and wcc barfs on
>>> -oi+.
>>>
>>> we *want* -os (optimize for size); size matters. both size on disk and
>>> size in memory are (somewhat) important. speed does *not* matter as
>>> there is virtually no time spend *inside* the kernel.
>>>
>>> to experiment, run some benchmark (like compiling a big project), on
>>> an optimized kernel vs. not optimized kernel vs. borland kernel.
>>> measure times. think.
>>>
>>> we *need* -zp1 as DOS structures have specific byte offsets.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that tip about zp1.
>>
>> As for benchmarks (implied by the Regression Tests), that is on the
>> FreeDOS 1.1->1.2 Road Map Action Items anyways. I'd like to help with that.
>>
>> I think I'm going to peruse Simtel and try to find OS benchmarks before I
>> start writing stuff that simply uses UTILS/RUNTIME. For Regression
>> Testing, I'd suggest using something like TAP (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Anything_Protocol). I might even be
>> able to contribute some code here. Otherwise, we can brainstorm some
>> benchmarks and tests
>>
>> FAT12 vs FAT16 vs FAT32,
>> File Reads (Small <1K, Medium <1MB, Large <16MB, Huge<2GB),
>> File Writes
>> File Creates
>> File Deletes
>> RAMDISK vs FDD vs HDD,
>> File Copies (Same RAMDISK, RAMDISK->HDD, HDD->RAMDISK, RAMDISK->RAMDISK,
>> Same HDD, HDD->HDD)
>> With & Without Caching
>> Cache Sizes
>> With & Without Share
>> Process Starts
>> Boot Times
>> Kernel Compilation Times
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
