From: kifox AT hotmail DOT com (kifox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Flexible Linking for GCC?
Date: 26 Jan 1998 03:39:53 GMT
Organization: Your Organization
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <6ah0i9$cgf$3@winter.news.erols.com>
References: <34CAEB55 DOT 6CEC1041 AT thegrid DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: user19.firstsaga.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In article <34CAEB55 DOT 6CEC1041 AT thegrid DOT net>, elange AT thegrid DOT net says...
>
>I need to do some 32-bit programming under DOS, but not with DPMI
>compliance.  So far, I have been doing all of my development using MASM
>6.11, because only an assembler gives me the flexibility I need.
>However, my development time is too long, and I need to develop an SDK
>for other users (my application is an OS-extender).
>
>I want to be able to develop in C/C++ for obvious reasons.  But, all I
>need the compiler to do is generate 32-bit code under some set of
>assumptions.  I also want the linker to allow me to replace all of the
>startup code, so I can load it any way I choose.  Basically, I just need
>to know the compiler assumptions.

Why would you want to do this? Only real reason I can think of for replacing 
the DJGPP startup code is so one could load some kind of virus-infested 
startup code in it's place.....