Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pacbell!att!occrsh!uokmax!rmtodd From: rmtodd@uokmax.UUCP (Richard Michael Todd) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Minix C compiler (again) Message-ID: <1358@uokmax.UUCP> Date: 3 Jun 88 21:56:08 GMT References: <2855@louie.udel.EDU> Reply-To: rmtodd@uokmax.UUCP (Richard Michael Todd) Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Lines: 39 In article <2855@louie.udel.EDU> Leisner.Henr@xerox.com (Marty) writes: >I have a copy of Minix I purchased right after the textbook came out. In order I assume that means v1.1. >to get it to run on my hard disk (I use genuwine PC-ATs) I had to start >recompiling Minix out of the box. The performance of the C compiler was >horrendous. To make the kernel was something which seemed I recall took on the >order over 1/2 hour. While the system was running on floppy disks, it didn't It's even worse on my system, a PC/XT clone. The first time I recompiled the kernel I sat down to watch Blake's 7. The tv show was finished before the compile was (~55 min.) Thing is, both Marty and I still have the v1.1 compiler. Is v1.2 much faster? Inquiring minds want to know. >compiler. Which is why I'm (somewhat) anxiously looking for other solutions to >native compiling on Minix (gcc? small-c?). Not likely. I can claim a good deal of experience with small-c, having ported it to my TRS-80 many years ago. If you don't mind having a compiler which only supports int, char, int *, char *, int [] and char [] types, small-C shouldn't be too difficult to port, especially if you start with a version already hacked to produce 8088 code (e.g. the one announced in this month's Byte). Frankly I don't think it's worth it. And from what I've heard porting GCC to the 8088 or 80286 would be decidedly non-trivial-- Richard Stallman didn't design his compiler to handle braindead architectures.... >may start timing each pass and see what's going on my system. HELP!! As I recall, the majority of the time is spent in cg and asld. (This from much experience pushing F1 to see what the machine was up to, and not terribly scientific.) >bit pointers and map in user space before operating on it. This will lead to >the ability to run more complicated memory models (specifically 1 64K code >segment/1 64K initialized data/1 64K stack/N 64K heap segments for moderate N). >Anyone else doing this? Hmm... sounds interesting. What would be even more interesting is some sort of overlay scheme with multiple code segments so we can have effective code sizes >64K. I don't really know enough about 286 architecture to know how feasible it would be... -- Richard Todd Dubious Domain: rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu USSnail:820 Annie Court,Norman OK 73069 Fido:1:147/1 UUCP: {many AT&T sites}!occrsh!uokmax!rmtodd, but don't be surprised if I don't answer--our mailer is *very* *very* hungry :-<