flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

flat assembler > Feedback > Split OS Construction in RM, 16PM, 32PM, X86-64, Drivers ?

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Niels



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 255
Split OS Construction in RM, 16PM, 32PM, X86-64, Drivers ?

Niels.
Post 24 Sep 2006, 14:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7109
Location: Slovakia
what?!?
Post 24 Sep 2006, 16:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4634
Location: Argentina
I think he means spliting it into Real Mode OSs, 16-bit Protected Mode OSs, ... , Drivers.

Maybe this thread should go to Feedback.
Post 24 Sep 2006, 16:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Niels



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 255
@locodeassembly: You're correct....both times Smile
Post 24 Sep 2006, 16:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7109
Location: Slovakia
moved
Post 24 Sep 2006, 18:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3172
Location: Denmark
RM: as little as possible
16bit PM: forget about this entirely, pretty useless
32/64bit: can share a LOT of code if you use C, but still need distinct parts, and of course recompilation.

And then there's the questions of whether to use (or just support, or totally ignore) VMX capabilities, and whether you want a v86 monitor.
Post 24 Sep 2006, 21:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Niels



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 255
@vid, Thank you.

@f0dder, I quit C when I found the source. Smile
Post 25 Sep 2006, 11:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3172
Location: Denmark
Niels wrote:
@vid, Thank you.

@f0dder, I quit C when I found the source. Smile


Then you have a lot of tedious code duplication in front of you ^_^

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 25 Sep 2006, 11:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Niels



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 255
@f0dder, That's not my style.

I do think you may be right in a different approach of ordering, if OS Construction will get a split.
Post 25 Sep 2006, 11:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Niels



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 255
@f0dder, It is not that I can't learn from C, but (alotta) C is misplaced on this forum.
Post 25 Sep 2006, 11:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Niels



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 255
Maybe Tomasz will think by now...There is an A is FASM, not a C... Smile
Post 25 Sep 2006, 11:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3172
Location: Denmark
Niels: there's a "edit post" button, better than posting three replies in a row Smile

My point was just that writing essentially the same code for two architectures is *boring* and error-prone. And pointless. Of course you could think up a thunking scheme so you could re-use a lot of 32bit code on a 64bit platform, but then what's the idea of writing the 64bit version in the first place?
Post 25 Sep 2006, 12:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Niels



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 255
@f0dder, call me a StackTalker. Smile

Quote:
My point was just that writing essentially the same code for two architectures is *boring* and error-prone. And pointless. Of course you could think up a thunking scheme so you could re-use a lot of 32bit code on a 64bit platform, but then what's the idea of writing the 64bit version in the first place?


I miss the previous-pointer...

possible_intended_pointer:
Quote:
32/64bit: can share a LOT of code if you use C, but still need distinct parts, and of course recompilation.


Never mind Smile
Post 25 Sep 2006, 12:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2018, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.