From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miguel Bolanos Subject: Re: gcc-8086 Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:37:21 -0600 Sender: linux-8086-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1084469841.3219.26.camel@talena.hsol.net> References: <20040513150634.GP13835@duckman.distro.conectiva> <1084464170.3219.6.camel@talena.hsol.net> <20040513164406.GT13835@duckman.distro.conectiva> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040513164406.GT13835@duckman.distro.conectiva> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Eduardo Pereira Habkost Cc: linux-8086@vger.kernel.org Hey! :) On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 10:44, Eduardo Pereira Habkost wrote: [...] > > 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. > > When I have time (I hope that it will be soon), I'll do some tests > using ELKS, and report them. First, I should try to boot ELKS on my only > 8086 machine (an uncommon one, I guess: a hp 200lx palmtop). > Good we will be looking forward to see those reports.. i will try to make sometime myself as well and see if i can get some results testing. Quite an uncommon box btw, but hey its always nice to play with uncommon hardware :) [...] > > Porting the existing kernel code... u mean making a fork for elks? > > I don't know if I would call it a "fork". > > I mean trying to make the 2.6 code work on 16-bit. Sure a separated tree > will be needed for this work, as most of the Linux kernel projects. Some > of the work could be used for ELKS, and lots of experience on ELKS, > and even code, would help. If it works, ELKS and Linux would become more > and more similar, but there is a long way ahead before this dream come > true. Yes.. as i said before i have been doing little bits of this.. but believe me its NOT such an easy task.. but hey if others are interest i could share what i've done so far so maybe we can take from there. > > (Okay, I am going back to the Real World. I was just wondering if that > could be possible :) > Possible yes.. easy? no :) [...] > I've started to do the same thing: playing with the 2.6 code, seeing > how hard would be doing that port. Then I decided look at ELKS first, > then check if it will be worth doing, and if someone haven't thought of > it yet. So here I am. > Well i consider it worth it for both the benefit to the community, and for the learning experience :) As i said if others are interested some of of us could start doing a bit of this.. > All these gcc and elks work are being a fun personal project to me, too. > Well i believe most if not all Open Source developers start cool projects just for fun. :) Thats part of the charm of the charm of the Open Source Community :) [...] > > > > 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? > > No, I mean to build only the needed parts, as on the 2.6 code, even > more parts of the kernel are becoming optional at build time, > and there are more that could be done. In a perfect world, we wouldn't > need a separated project for linux-8086, just disable the features you > on't need. > > But I didn't tested how small the kernel could be made, even on i386, > removing all unneeded parts. If it is still too big, a lot of the work > would be making unnecessary parts optional. This would help not only > 8086 people, but other people that works on embedded systems. If it is > still TOO big, then the work will be even more painful. 8) > Your idea is nice... but sounds quite painfull... but then again if some how this could be flexible enough to maybe have an arch oriented feature selection.. but i don't know.. we would have to think about to in the end get to the conclusion that is easier to write a subset with the official kernel code style. > BTW, I currently have a 5MB flash disk on my "8086 machine", and should > receive a 256MB ata flash disk for it, soon. > nice. > Anyway, my "dream" would be building, from the same Linux kernel tree, > with different options, a kernel as small as ELKS, and the kernel for > my PC or to a server. It seems to be a long way. :) > Well start doing something to make that dream come true is a good start :) > > > > best wishes > > > > Mike > > Just sharing my thoughts. I think that I should show something more > concrete, now, and not only wondering "how nice would it be if we have > foobar ported to 8086". Not really... brain storms are always great to then write down concrete stuff. hopefully others will join this conversation.. Alan? Harry? Paul? :) best regards Mike