From: "Colin W. Glenn" 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: References: <19961220 DOT 124010 DOT 6919 DOT 6 DOT jesusfreak44 AT juno DOT com> <32BC484E DOT 3563 AT cs DOT com> <32BF947B DOT 495F AT cs DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sparkie.gnofn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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.)