muta...@gmail.com
2022-12-12 02:04:18 UTC
I spent a lot of time on 16-bit segmentation, because
I wanted to understand what it was capable of, and
the implications.
But I was surprised to see someone deliberately ask
for non-flat, and I asked why. Here is the answer:
https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56200&sid=6573207586407a694e722e430669a148#p343839
https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56200&sid=6573207586407a694e722e430669a148#p343845
And here is 7.3.3:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201101132957/http://ftp.openwatcom.org/manuals/current/clr.pdf
And here is another public domain compiler being actively written:
https://git.sr.ht/~pitust/funicc
He is collaborating with this author:
https://github.com/wxwisiasdf/cc23/tree/master
And also, with the advent of these public domain compilers,
I am willing to upgrade language after about 35 years of
coding to C90 (the ANSI C draft was available earlier than
1990).
But I would like to discuss an acceptable language.
I consider C99 to be an abortion.
One deviation from C99 I would make is to make int32_t
have the same meaning as int_least32_t, as the former
as defined by ISO, in combination with actual users who
keep leaving out "least", has broken the spirit of C.
"long long" could be reserved solely for internal use by
a (e.g.) 32-bit C compiler building a 64-bit C compiler.
Nothing set in stone, just thoughts.
Also I'm not claiming to understand 7.3.3 or access
registers or microkernels. But I thought it might be of
interest.
BFN. Paul.
I wanted to understand what it was capable of, and
the implications.
But I was surprised to see someone deliberately ask
for non-flat, and I asked why. Here is the answer:
https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56200&sid=6573207586407a694e722e430669a148#p343839
https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56200&sid=6573207586407a694e722e430669a148#p343845
And here is 7.3.3:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201101132957/http://ftp.openwatcom.org/manuals/current/clr.pdf
And here is another public domain compiler being actively written:
https://git.sr.ht/~pitust/funicc
He is collaborating with this author:
https://github.com/wxwisiasdf/cc23/tree/master
And also, with the advent of these public domain compilers,
I am willing to upgrade language after about 35 years of
coding to C90 (the ANSI C draft was available earlier than
1990).
But I would like to discuss an acceptable language.
I consider C99 to be an abortion.
One deviation from C99 I would make is to make int32_t
have the same meaning as int_least32_t, as the former
as defined by ISO, in combination with actual users who
keep leaving out "least", has broken the spirit of C.
"long long" could be reserved solely for internal use by
a (e.g.) 32-bit C compiler building a 64-bit C compiler.
Nothing set in stone, just thoughts.
Also I'm not claiming to understand 7.3.3 or access
registers or microkernels. But I thought it might be of
interest.
BFN. Paul.