Η ομάδα στην οποία στέλνετε μήνυμα είναι μια ομάδα Usenet. Τα μηνύματα που στέλνετε σε αυτήν την ομάδα θα κάνουν το μήνυμα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου σας ορατό σε όλους στο διαδίκτυο.
nood...@gmail.com wrote: > Has anyone ever done such a thing? I need help doing so!
Without a lot of modifications, this is unlikely to work. Minix was written with the ACK compiler in mind, and especially some of the more intricate stuff is quite compiler dependent. The question is: why do you want to compile Minix using gcc?
Regards,
Jens
-- Jens de Smit Student Computer Science | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam jfds...@few.vu.nl | http://www.few.vu.nl/~jfdsmit "[In the end, people] get furious at IT that the goddamn magic isn't working" -- Stewart Dean
d...@kbrx.com wrote: > Take a look at: > http://minix1.woodhull.com > All sorts of info about minix 2.xxx is here, including the source code > seen in the text. > Hul > nood...@gmail.com wrote: > > Has anyone ever done such a thing? I need help doing so!
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:58:57 +0000, J.F. de Smit wrote: > Without a lot of modifications, this is unlikely to work. Minix was > written with the ACK compiler in mind, and especially some of the more > intricate stuff is quite compiler dependent.
What stuff forces MINIX 3 to be compiler-dependent. I've searched minix3.org and have come up empty.
> The question is: why do you want to compile Minix using gcc?
The Minix3 FAQ section "What is the performance of MINIX 3 like" states one of the reasons that causes MINIX 3 to be 5-10% slower than MINIX 2 is that "the ACK compiler is faster than gcc but the code is worse".
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Rui Maciel wrote: >> The question is: why do you want to compile Minix using gcc?
> The Minix3 FAQ section "What is the performance of MINIX 3 like" states > one of the reasons that causes MINIX 3 to be 5-10% slower than MINIX 2 is > that "the ACK compiler is faster than gcc but the code is worse".
I think that means the output of ACK is faster, not it's speed of compilation but the source code for MINIX 3 is "worse" (not as optimized) so compliling the MINIX 3 souce under gcc would be even slower.
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Rui Maciel wrote: > >> The question is: why do you want to compile Minix using gcc?
> > The Minix3 FAQ section "What is the performance of MINIX 3 like" states > > one of the reasons that causes MINIX 3 to be 5-10% slower than MINIX 2 is > > that "the ACK compiler is faster than gcc but the code is worse".
> I think that means the output of ACK is faster, not it's speed of > compilation but the source code for MINIX 3 is "worse" (not as optimized) > so compliling the MINIX 3 souce under gcc would be even slower.
> Benchmarking gcc vs. ACK should be easy enough.
> 3ch
I was puzzled that why Minix is compiled with ACK otherwise gcc. After all, gcc is more widely used than ACK.
Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:58:57 +0000, J.F. de Smit wrote: >> Without a lot of modifications, this is unlikely to work. Minix was >> written with the ACK compiler in mind, and especially some of the more >> intricate stuff is quite compiler dependent. > What stuff forces MINIX 3 to be compiler-dependent. I've searched > minix3.org and have come up empty.
IIRC, ACK and GCC assembly don't see eye to eye, so you need to compile the assembler files using ACK. You can't feed ACK and GCC object files to the same linker, so you need to compile the kernel with ACK, at the very least.
>> The question is: why do you want to compile Minix using gcc? > The Minix3 FAQ section "What is the performance of MINIX 3 like" states > one of the reasons that causes MINIX 3 to be 5-10% slower than MINIX 2 is > that "the ACK compiler is faster than gcc but the code is worse".
Okay, that's pretty nice reason. I would be interested to see what exactly needs to be done to compile the Minix internals on GCC and get everything to work.
Regards,
Jens
-- Jens de Smit Student Computer Science | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam jfds...@few.vu.nl | http://www.few.vu.nl/~jfdsmit "[In the end, people] get furious at IT that the goddamn magic isn't working" -- Stewart Dean
fetag <cas...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was puzzled that why Minix is compiled with ACK otherwise gcc. After > all, gcc is more widely used than ACK.
The release of Minix 1.1 (the version that came with the first book) happened in the same year that the first beta of GCC got released, and GCC then only ran on the Motorola 68k family, not on the x86. Since then, Minix and ACK have been intertwined and no amount of GCC adoption has changed that as of yet.
Regards,
Jens
-- Jens de Smit Student Computer Science | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam jfds...@few.vu.nl | http://www.few.vu.nl/~jfdsmit "[In the end, people] get furious at IT that the goddamn magic isn't working" -- Stewart Dean
> Has anyone ever done such a thing? I need help doing so!
Hi, I've been working on a project where I'm trying to compile Minix using gcc/nasm and boot using grub - Please check out svn checkout http://powerpack.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ powerpack-read-only Regards, Kashyap
> fetag wrote: >> I was puzzled that why Minix is compiled with ACK otherwise gcc. >> After all, gcc is more widely used than ACK.
> The release of Minix 1.1 (the version that came with the first book) > happened in the same year that the first beta of GCC got released, > and GCC then only ran on the Motorola 68k family, not on the x86.
True. Furthermore, as far as I know no version of GCC did target x86-16 aka 8086 aka i86, i.e. the initial target of Minix (despite it being abandonned for Minix3).
> > Has anyone ever done such a thing? I need help doing so!
> Hi, > I've been working on a project where I'm trying to compile Minix using > gcc/nasm and boot using grub - > Please check out svn checkouthttp://powerpack.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ > powerpack-read-only > Regards, > Kashyap
GOOD JOB !
BTW: Which version of Minix did you use to compile by gcc ? Have you succeed ? If possible, I think, you'd better write a article about how to build a envoriment, it will be very useful. ^_^
