Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.os2.programmer.misc > #1820

Re: another VIO attempt

Show all headers | View raw

On 15/02/24 23:23, Paul Edwards wrote:

> I'm after a technically pure 32-bit application.
>
> And I may produce my own version of OS/2 2.0
> (similar to PDOS/386 being a mini Win32 clone).
>
> Or I may do the opposite of win32os2 - and run
> OS/2 2.0 programs under Win32. Certain OS/2
> programs. Ones that are dependent on pdpcrt.dll.
> Although that last one would still work if it
> was implemented using the 16-bit calls internally.

Ok, there has been a development.

The author of pdld has agreed to support the output
of OS/2 2.0 LX executables if I add load support for
them in exeload.c (of PDOS/386).

And I have similar plans for ELF, now that I know
how to read command line parameters via a method
other than an unusual stack (which PDOS/386 doesn't
provide).

And thanks to my OS/2 2.0 executables being pure
32-bit that are only dependent on doscalls, I can
intercept at the doscalls level.

And I maintain a variation of gcc 3.2.3 for Windows
that should also be suitable for OS/2 2.0.

And we also have an assembler that is sufficiently
masm-compatible.

So put it all together and we should be able to
stand up a self-hosting mini clone of OS/2 2.0.

Not what I originally set out to do.

But my goals have always been vague and more of
a "see what happens if I do this".

Pushing onto the Amiga, and onto 16-bit MSDOS
and OS/2 in the end gave me a model that applied
to 64-bit too.

Here is the code that needs to be updated if
anyone else is interested (all code needs to
be explicit public domain though):

https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/bios/exeload.c

Executables will need to have relocation information
in order to work in a PDOS/386 environment.

BFN. Paul.

Back to comp.os.os2.programmer.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 13:13 +0800
  Re: another VIO attempt xhajt03 <xhajt03@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 04:16 -0800
    Re: another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 21:28 +0800
      Re: another VIO attempt xhajt03 <xhajt03@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 06:47 -0800
        Re: another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 23:23 +0800
          Re: another VIO attempt xhajt03 <xhajt03@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 09:07 -0800
            Re: another VIO attempt Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 17:13 -0800
          Re: another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 16:58 +0800
            Re: another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 18:09 +0800
      Re: another VIO attempt Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 17:38 -0800
        Re: another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-16 16:17 +0800
          Re: another VIO attempt Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-16 15:05 -0800
            Re: another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 09:44 +0800
              Re: another VIO attempt Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 15:47 -0800
                Re: another VIO attempt Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-18 09:48 +0800

csiph-web