Re: Future of ELKS

["Jody" <jbruchon@nc.rr.com>]

> People these days are used to very big computers. You don't realise just
> what's possible in a small amount of space. The granddaddy of Unix
> systems, the PDP11 [*], was a 64kB-64kB I/D system. Sound familiar?
> That's exactly the same as what's supported by ELKS.
>
> As for compilers... well, I have a full ANSI C compiler that runs on
> CP/M. It runs in 64kB of memory shared between code and data and it'll
> generate moderately decent Z80 code. If that's possible, then a
> self-hosted ANSI C compiler for ELKS is certainly possible.

If the ELKS system as a whole is designed (evolved?) correctly, we will
certainly see the potential for a native C compiler within it.  By hacking
gcc to death, I hope we will reach this more quickly...

> The problem is *finding* one... compilers are expensive technology, and
> there's only a few open-source compilers around. Most of them are pretty
> large. ELKS' current compiler, bcc, is a well-hacked version of Minix's
> compiler. It only supports K&R, with a nasty preprocessor that converts
> ANSI to K&R, but it will run self-hosted on Minix so it should run on
> ELKS, too.

It doesn't yet, but then again, someone in here with the initiative can
surely "bcc-ize" bcc (if anything I have said ever sounded like utterly
crappy word chopping...that was it) but that will take a lot of work, just
like the proposed gcc-8086 attempts will.

> And a development environment is not that complicated. All you need is
> to be able to run make, the compiler front end, and the compiler back
> end, concurrently. Add in init and that makes four processes. If each
> one of these uses its maximum of 128kB of memory that means it'll need
> 512kB of memory. That's pushing it on a 640kB system, what with the
> kernel and system workspace in there, but manageable. On a 286 with a
> real MMU it's easy.

Of course if we write it right, there's the likelihood that we won't eat
entire segments with each process...which would be necessary for a 256K
working system in my opinion.

> If Minix can do it, with its slow and inefficient microkernel, ELKS can
> certainly do it.
>
> [...]
> > Hey, someone know if a 8086 is fast enough run emulators for those old
> > 8-bit game consoles?  8)
>
> Nah. A 4.77MHz 8086 does not get a lot of work done. Say you want to
> emulate a 2MHz 6502, such as the BBC Micro... this means you have about
> two and a half cycles to emulate each 6502 cycle. Just not possible.

Emulation and 8086 don't mix! *grin*

Jody