From: damon AT WRONG DOT redshift DOT com (Damon Casale)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Porting DJGPP to EFI?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:33:30 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <3ab683fd.425813@news.redshift.com>
References: <3aa7fc10 DOT 1016687 AT news DOT redshift DOT com> <2561-Sat10Mar2001193606+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3ab2a1c2 DOT 852553 AT news DOT redshift DOT com> <2561-Sat17Mar2001093834+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse AT supernews DOT com
Lines: 30
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:38:34 +0200, "Eli Zaretskii"
<eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

>> From: damon AT WRONG DOT redshift DOT com (Damon Casale)
>> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
>> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:35:00 GMT
>> >> 
>> >> I'm hoping that people here have at least heard of EFI.  Is there any
>> >> interest in porting DJGPP to EFI?  I don't think I'd be up to it,
>> >> myself.
>> >
>> >How much is it different from DOS?
>> 
>> It's somewhat more primitive at the moment (Intel may expect the OEMs
>> to flesh it out, since they're the ones who will be using it, by and
>> large) although it's 32-bit and open-source.
>
>I was asking whether the OS interface is significantly different.  If
>it is, the whole low-level part of the library and large parts of the
>startup code will need to be rewritten.  Also, if it doesn't support
>DPMI, many internal details of DJGPP operation will have to be
>redesigned and rewritten.

Yes, it's significantly different, unfortunately.  I think it provides
its own memory management solution also.

Damon Casale, damon AT WRONG DOT redshift DOT com (remove the obvious)
So I like DJGPP better than VC6, which is what EFI currently uses.  So
sue me.