Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.development > #8316

Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS?

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 01:10:21 -0400, Alexei A. Frounze  
<alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:40:05 AM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 04:44:33 -0400, Alexei A. Frounze
>> <...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > I think you still don't realize the simple idea of a simple
>> > compiler as also evidenced by the earlier statement that the
>> > generation of jcc's is somehow wrong
>>
>> It is.
>>
>> > (and NASM being wrong as well,
>>
>> It is.
>
> AFAIK, you have provided nothing of substance to support the above
> claims, merely fears of the kind "oh, no, NASM's doing something
> behind my back, it can't be good, and Smaller C is supportive of
> that sin, run!".

The fact that I didn't want to get into a long discussion of these
issues seems to have provoked you.  I believe they're serious, but
why would I continue to spend time to discuss them with someone who
dismisses them as being trivial, as you just did? ...

I can say the almost the same thing about your blatant acceptance:

AFAIK, you have provided nothing of substance to support your claims,
only expressing absolute acceptance as "well, it looks like it works
to me, but I'm not about to check, and I trivialize serious details
without experience in them, and there couldn't have possibly been a
dozen reasons why a skilled C programmer and x86 assembly programmer
who has programmed for over 3 decades in over 16 languages would've
ever claimed such things since my experience doesn't indicate this!"

So, you prove it, dismissive bitch.  Prove that it makes no
difference.  IMO, I'm sitting well here by knowing of a few
situations with NASM where I know for a fact that it does.

>> > It's all by design, by a simple design.
>>
>> It's interesting that when I mention "simpler" designs and
>> method of implementations both here and elsewhere, e.g.,
>> comp.lang.asm.x86, comp.lang.misc, alt.lang.asm, etc that
>> everyone rejects my "simpler" design, which is provably so.
>
> I don't recall of a design of yours of a C compiler simpler
> and smaller than Smaller C and yet having all of its
> functionality and supporting at least the same architectures
> and platforms.

I didn't specifically mention a C compiler.  As you well know or
should, we don't just exclusively discuss C compilers here, but
mostly OS development.  And, I obviously indicated other
conversations elsewhere on other topics which didn't include you.

So, did you miss the point or just ignore it?  The point was why
shouldn't other people on Usenet criticize your designs, when
they criticize everyone's designs.  Makes sense, yes?  I.e., why
should I be the exception to the rule when it comes to you?  That
would seem to be arrogant.

> I doubt there is one. If there is, I'm all ears. If there isn't,
> the above talk about so-provable simpler designs is just an
> irrelevant (in the context of Smaller C) blabber.

For a small C compiler, I was working with SmallC.  I still might
again someday.  It only had a few areas that needed more development
for use as a bootstrap compiler.  Unfortunately, Steve, who helped
out a lot, chose a different path from the version I was working on.

For a full C compiler, I was using OpenWatcom and DJGPP (GCC).

> So, is there?

(FYI, I've answered this same question _at least_ twice previously
for you ...  How is your memory today?)

I have a number of C parsers of my own designs.  I haven't worked
on many of them in some years.  Most of my time was spent on my
OS project, not on compilers, parsers, and assemblers, which came
later.  I do have many other projects including a simpler language
and assembler which emits code, as well as other projects that do,
such a simple Forth to assembly.  So, most of my C parsers are
simple and not full compilers, although they could be, but as stated
I was using other completed C compilers for my needs.  One C parser
is rather complex.  It's a merger of code of mine from three or four
different projects.  It is capable of doing full C-to-C parsing
and C code transformations.  I.e., it's for reducing full C code
to simple C code that can be compiled by a bootstrap C compiler such
as SmallC, Bellard's TCC, or perhaps SmallerC.  Currently, it's
only set up with trivial stuff, but is not limited to them.  It
may still need some additional work to fully do so, but it's close
to being complete, if not.  If you had been reading my posts over
the years, even only while you were here, you'd probably remember
this.  Why?  Because, I've answered this numerous times for others
who've posted.

> Some of your suggested code improvements are impractical, because
> you either ignore the context or aren't sufficiently versed in it.

Apparently, you could say the same of James too, but not Ben.  So,
tell me, why did you chose to only mention that in regards to me? ...

AFAIR, the "context" you refer to was never stated here.  You've not
provided that info here, even with both James' and my questions about
SmallerC.  The info may be available to whomever looks at your source
code, but we're conversing directly with the original  *author*  of
said code, who appears to be totally ignorant of it when asked in
depth questions about it.  What gives?  We really shouldn't have to
go jumping through a bunch of time wasting hoops like trained sea
animals when you can answer directly.

> AFAIK, to date you still haven't used Smaller C beyond just one
> short stint

I did? ...  I don't recall that.  Maybe, I did.  I've looked at
numerous projects over the years, including many of your other projects.
I've provided links to them when you weren't here and recommended some
too.  I do recall offering to run the SmallerC code through other C
compilers for possible errors, but you never responded to that.  So,
I took it that that proffer offended you, i.e., ISTM you took it as
an insult that there could possibly be errors in your code ...
Currently, you seem to be taking the suggestion that anyone could
improve your code as an insult too, i.e., your recent comments to me.
Yet, you let Ben make additions and changes for things he wanted.
These even complicated your simpler SmallerC C compiler which is
something you've repeatedly insisted to me in this thread that you
simply aren't willing to do.  Contradiction?  Conundrum.

> and I'm certain you have spent even less time reading and
> understanding its code/design.

So?  This discussion was started by James on his issues, and shifted
to James having 8086 issues supposedly with SmallerC and NASM.  So,
tell me, just when did this thread become the "Alexei Frounze"
SmallerC show?  It seems you're attempting to usurp the thread.  This
appears to be an ego issue from my perspective.  Am I wrong?  It also
seems that you're always attempting to make demands of me and my time.

> Doesn't it feel good to be generous, Rod, when you give something
> to others?

I always give to others.  You don't, ever, it seems, AFAIR.

Did you forget I've been posting here for almost a decade and I have
excellent recall?  When subscribed here and posting, you only post
under a few circumstances:

1) you need someone's help  (which is rare...)
2) you're promoting your code, as you're doing with SmallerC now
3) you want to be argumentative or negative or hostile or an asshole

I've  *NEVER*  seen you help anyone else out with their code or projects
on a.o.d.  Where were you when I was doing E802h memory maps?  Where
were you when James was doing A20 and other other machine characteristics
tests?  Where were you when Ben was doing his OHCI, UHCI, EHCI, XHCI
tests and FYSOS OS tests?  You're always missing in action, MIA, when
it comes to helping out others here.  Why would you expect others to
help you out?  When did you earn any goodwill?  Those are all recent
examples, i.e., within the past few years.  Where where you when Steve
was working on SmallC, DrAcOnUx was working on Linux 0.01 remake, when
Paul Edwards was working on his PDOS and PDPCLIB, Brendan Trotter on
BCOS, Kristof Benes on Cribix, Peter Cheung on POS, Paul Hulme on Thix
OS, Marvin Lee with his personal OS, BGB/cr88192 on his personal OS,
or even Mike Gonta with aeBIOS, etc.

You.  MIA.  Always.

(Ben is frequently MIA too.  He says he's busy.)

> Well, sorry, impractical suggestions are of little value
> to the recipients.

Sociopath?  Why would you assume that the information was  *exclusively*
intended for you?  Perhaps, it wasn't even intended for you at all.  I.e.,
it might be useful to James or others here, or even someone in the future.
There are many lurkers who don't post or can't post to Usenet.  I search
old Usenet posts all the time for useful info, especially in regards
to my Forth interpreter in C project.

>> So, why should you be any different? ...  ;-)
>
> You mean, why shouldn't I reject your simpler designs just as well?
> Or you mean, why shouldn't I be another Rod?

Was that an attempt at sarcasm or humor?

No, I mean what's wrong with your ego that you can't accept input
 from others without harsh judgement of them?  You ask for others to
use your projects, but when they make comments about them, or make
general discussion related to them, you explode emotionally and
attack them ...  AFAIR, the only person over the past decade you
haven't done that to at some point in time was recently with Ben.

> I have to remind you yet again that special casing is useful
> but complicates and inflates code, which is something I prefer
> to avoid in Smaller C.

You initially indicated your intent to help James.  Have you rescinded
that intent?  That is what this conversation has all been about despite
your attempts to change focus to SmallerC.  You can start a new thread
on SmallerC, as you have in the past, if you wish to discuss SmallerC.
E.g., post some code, ask questions.  That would be easier than either
James or I asking you questions to obtain the "context" and you turning
around and stating we don't know the "context".  Provide it.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Tolerance and socialism attracts intolerance and terrorism.  See:
France, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, ...
UK: Strong encryption, non-issue. GR: Eurozone currency, priority.

Back to alt.os.development | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 21:20 -0700
  Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 10:36 +0100
    Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 21:07 -0700
      Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 23:35 -0700
        Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 08:35 +0100
          Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 02:49 -0700
            Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 11:27 +0100
              Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-03 16:54 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 22:45 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-03 17:56 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 15:28 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 23:48 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 21:52 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-04 04:00 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 04:42 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-05 02:12 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-05 00:47 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-05 05:28 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-05 02:58 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-06 06:21 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 01:44 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-07 05:40 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-07-07 14:02 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-07-07 18:13 +0200
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Kerr Mudd-John" <notsaying@invalid.org> - 2015-07-08 12:54 -0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 13:19 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 22:10 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 08:48 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 23:53 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 17:29 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 01:01 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 13:46 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 00:59 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-08 03:52 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 06:46 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 13:16 +0100
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-11 09:57 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-13 02:47 -0400
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-14 07:39 -0700
                Re: What form of executable or load module for your OS? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-07-15 02:37 -0400
        Code insanity "Mike Gonta" <mikegonta@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 03:47 -0400
          Re: Code insanity "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 02:57 -0700
          Re: Code insanity (was: What form of executable or load module for your OS?) "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 11:35 +0100

csiph-web