From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miguel Bolanos Subject: Re: gcc-8086 Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:02:50 -0600 Sender: linux-8086-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1084464170.3219.6.camel@talena.hsol.net> References: <20040513150634.GP13835@duckman.distro.conectiva> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040513150634.GP13835@duckman.distro.conectiva> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Eduardo Pereira Habkost Cc: linux-8086@vger.kernel.org Greetings Eduardo, On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 09:06, Eduardo Pereira Habkost wrote: > Hi, all, > > I've been working on the DJ gcc i86 target patches, and I've been making > it work using gas instead of nasm, and had some progress. > nice. > I would like to know if there is anyone interested on the gcc-8086 work, > here, or that have worked on it before. I am starting to look at ELKS > code, and I plan to test their binaries using ELKS. > I haven't get to test it yet... but yeah i'd be interest to see how useful it can be for us. ATM we use bcc. > Another question: is there any interest from the ELKS project in using > GCC to build ELKS? Wouldn't it make easier the work of porting existing > Linux Kernel code to ELKS, for example? > Porting the existing kernel code... u mean making a fork for elks? I have been making my own elks kernel based on linux 2.6 kernel.. but i haven't progress that much due to time availability.. but this have been more a fun personal project, than anything else. > I am wondering how painful would be making the actual Linux Kernel code > work on a 16-bit arch, once we have a working gcc-8086. The Linux code > seems to be "at-least-32-bit dependant" in many parts that are supposed > to be arch-independant. But once those parts are changed, there are some > strong reasons for not doing it? > The first question that comes to my mind is... do u mean to put all the linux kernel on a 10mb hard disk (if u are lucky to find one this big for an 8086), even though u know that 99.5% of the code is useless for ur box? best wishes Mike > -- > Eduardo