On 25/02/17 13:21, Georg Potthast 2 wrote: > bcc is part of the repo of most major Linux distributions. I would suggest to contact the maintainers of the packages in these repos to see which code base they use to generate the packages and what their comments are regarding this plan. > > Using an optimising compiler to compile the ELKS kernel would probably cut its size in half. So selecting a different compiler for ELKS would make sense. pc86 support on the ACK has been beaten into shape and now produces binaries which actually run, if anyone's interested. Out of the box it produces tiny mode executables which can be dd'd to a floppy disk and run (I've just tested it to make sure!). And it supports ANSI C89 natively. The bad news is that it doesn't play with other toolchains, having its own proprietary object file format. This would require any assembly files to be translated to the ACK's rather peculiar syntax. Alternatively, in the land of compilers written after 1980, wasn't Alan Cox working on a i86 pcc port? -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ───── │ "There is nothing in the world so dangerous --- and I mean *nothing* │ --- as a children's story that happens to be true." --- Master Li Kao, │ _The Bridge of Birds_
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
