From:	"Colin W. Glenn" <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DPMI incorporation...
Date:	Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:29:14 -0600
Organization:	Greater New Orleans Free-Net
Lines:	32
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.3.95.961225202157.3776H-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
References:	<19961220 DOT 124010 DOT 6919 DOT 6 DOT jesusfreak44 AT juno DOT com> <32BC484E DOT 3563 AT cs DOT com> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 961223231822 DOT 3071F-100000 AT sparkie DOT gnofn DOT org> <32BF947B DOT 495F AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	sparkie.gnofn.org
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<32BF947B.495F@cs.com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, John M. Aldrich wrote:
> > Question!  Is it possible to compile programs without DPMI?  I'm looking

> Unfortunately, it is not.  DJGPP requires a 32-bit environment to run
> minimum for a useful distributable program is 20-30k for the program and
> another 20k for CWSDPMI.  Don't feel turned off - this is MUCH smaller
> than any other 32-bit compiler in existence.

Which is the catch, I'll have to include that with my program.

CAN:
[1] CWSDPMI be incorparated?
[2] ASM code be produced?

I already see the possible catch with the incorparation, shells and
chaining programs.

ASM code, see below...

> If you really want a tiny little 10k program, then you'd be better off
> using a dinky 16-bit compiler for the small stuff, or coding in pure
> assembly and nuking all the startup code, which can get pretty messy. 

Well, that's why I asking about UNIX386 (my name for it because is't
ported from UNIX, and it requires a 386), the dinky compilers produce
nasty code sometimes, or produces it's own version of C.  And as far as
coding in pure assembly, well, that's why I learning C, so I can use C to
produce a working shell which I can fine tune and flesh out, I learned
assembly first.  (ie I use the option to produce ASM output, but only
after I get a working program from a full compile to EXE.)

- Raw text -