Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.os2.programmer.misc > #1858
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.os2.programmer.misc |
| Subject | Re: loader |
| Date | 2024-02-28 12:50 +0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <urme2j$3maq2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <urc6so$133ut$1@dont-email.me> <urc9ed$13job$1@dont-email.me> <urd1vu$18mln$1@dont-email.me> <urggi7$24i42$1@dont-email.me> <1555304872.730765612.509768.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
On 28/02/24 06:41, Peter Flass wrote: >> https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/bios/exeload.c >> >> but it's still not usable for anything other than >> limited testing. >> >> With a bit of luck, that will change within 24 hours. OS/2 didn't move overnight (ie Slovakia daytime) because focus was switched to supporting Linux ELF, which has made gigantic strides and I should be back to that later today. > Thank you, this is very interesting. I’m wondering if it’s possible to run > OS/2 executables on Linux, with suitable work. Yes, for a similar reason that certain Win32 programs can be run under Linux, a similar (but different because of the intercept at doscalls.dll rather than msvcrt.dll) technique proved to be possible for OS/2, and if you go to http://pdos.org and search for the second occurrence of OS/2, you will see uc386l.zip which contains a standalone (no dependency even on libc) 50k bios.exe Linux ELF binary which is capable of running certain Win32 executables (some provided in the distribution), and very limited (like the one I posted here as a hexdump) OS/2 executables. There is no barrier I know of for this to be further fleshed out to support any C90 application - and with limited increase to the 50k size. The main barrier is the pdld author is grappling with some OS/2 executable issues and I don't want to outrun him (and he is the safer pair of hands if he chooses to modify exeload in tandem). He seemed annoyed that he couldn't access doscalls functions by name instead of ordinal and asked me if there was a reason for that. Anyone know? He also had issues with "object" (LX) vs "section" (PE) but it is unclear to me whether they are conceptually different. BFN. Paul.
Back to comp.os.os2.programmer.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-20 16:10 +0800
Re: loader Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-20 17:45 -0700
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-21 10:51 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 06:14 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 11:38 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 15:24 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 15:46 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 16:30 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:28 +0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-26 06:56 +0800
Re: loader Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-27 15:41 -0700
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 12:50 +0800
Re: loader Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 14:04 -0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 06:56 +0800
Re: loader Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 19:11 -0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 11:46 +0800
Re: loader Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 23:02 -0800
Re: loader Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-03-01 07:15 +0800
Re: loader Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 14:20 -0800
Re: loader Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 13:52 -0800
Re: loader Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-28 17:43 -0700
csiph-web