www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - DOSX support for D

reply Simon J Mackenzie <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> writes:
I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
What would the port involve?

Regards, Simon, potential DeeVohTee
May 19 2003
next sibling parent reply "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> writes:
D is not directly supported under DOSX, but you could make DMD binaries run
under DOS by using modified WDOSX.

For details, look for message 'Re: Using DMC from DOS' in "c++.announce"
news-group.

WDOSX is obviously slower than Doug Huffman's DOSX (by my estimations, it is
twice slower), but it supports DLLs 'natively'.
In order to make DMD produce DOSX executables the run-time library should be
rewritten and appropriate startup module written. And in addition to this
Walter should add DOSX model for compilation.

I am going to rewrite RTL for DOSX but this will be little later. I think I
will be very busy in next 2-3 months.

Nic Tiger.

"Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
 Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
 What would the port involve?

 Regards, Simon, potential DeeVohTee

May 20 2003
next sibling parent Simon J Mackenzie <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> writes:
Hi Nic,
Thanks for the speedy reply and pointing me to an interem solution.

As I see it the broader the base the greater the potential market 
acceptance for D.

My hunch is that there is a viable group of supporters out there who do 
want a good 32bit DOS extender/compiler option for D.  A solution for 
32bit DOS D apps would be icing on the cake and possibly others as 
well?!  It would provide a toolset to build fast D apps across Linux, 
Windows and DOS!!!  Very nice indeed!!!

NB: The OpenWatcom project has certainly provided me with what I'm 
looking for for DOS extended C / C++ apps and now DMC has DOSX.

Nic Tiger wrote:
 D is not directly supported under DOSX, but you could make DMD binaries run
 under DOS by using modified WDOSX.
 
 For details, look for message 'Re: Using DMC from DOS' in "c++.announce"
 news-group.
 
 WDOSX is obviously slower than Doug Huffman's DOSX (by my estimations, it is
 twice slower), but it supports DLLs 'natively'.

Thanks Nic, I've downloaded the WDOSX material and I will set it up and try it out as soon as I have time (next week).
 In order to make DMD produce DOSX executables the run-time library should be
 rewritten and appropriate startup module written. And in addition to this
 Walter should add DOSX model for compilation.

These steps seem like a much more appealing long term solution and one that would be fully intregrated into DMD and not a partial solution, so I'll will look forward to progress in this area.
 
 I am going to rewrite RTL for DOSX but this will be little later. I think I
 will be very busy in next 2-3 months.

A good, sound long term solution will be worth the wait if the first option gets me up and running with 32 bit DOS apps. If Walter adds the DOSX model to DMD that would certainly make the job that much easier! Here's hoping.
 
 Nic Tiger.
 
 "Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
 news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
What would the port involve?

Regards, Simon, potential DeeVohTee


Regards, Simon, a DeeVoteTee (formerly a DeeVohTee)
May 21 2003
prev sibling parent reply Simon J Mackenzie <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> writes:
Hi Nic,
I assume that WDosX is not designed to be used with a DMD executable. 
When I run stubit -nowfse hello.exe (dmd hello.d from the samples\d 
directory) it seems happy enough but I get the following runtime errors 
with hello.exe. a) with your *.wdl files : Could not find CreateThread 
in module Kernel32.DLL b) with WDosX 97B1 : Could not find 
ReleaseSemaphore in module Kernel32.DLL. NB: Yes KERNEL32.DLL and not 
..32.WDL!

Does this mean there are still more Win32 calls in a DMD executable that 
are not supported by WDosX???  If this is the case then I guess it means 
I will be unable to use DMD to create 32bit DOS apps?

cheers
Simon




Nic Tiger wrote:
 D is not directly supported under DOSX, but you could make DMD binaries run
 under DOS by using modified WDOSX.
 
 For details, look for message 'Re: Using DMC from DOS' in "c++.announce"
 news-group.
 
 WDOSX is obviously slower than Doug Huffman's DOSX (by my estimations, it is
 twice slower), but it supports DLLs 'natively'.
 In order to make DMD produce DOSX executables the run-time library should be
 rewritten and appropriate startup module written. And in addition to this
 Walter should add DOSX model for compilation.
 
 I am going to rewrite RTL for DOSX but this will be little later. I think I
 will be very busy in next 2-3 months.
 
 Nic Tiger.
 
 "Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
 news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
What would the port involve?

Regards, Simon, potential DeeVohTee


May 25 2003
next sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:baqcgk$1avt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi Nic,
 I assume that WDosX is not designed to be used with a DMD executable.
 When I run stubit -nowfse hello.exe (dmd hello.d from the samples\d
 directory) it seems happy enough but I get the following runtime errors
 with hello.exe. a) with your *.wdl files : Could not find CreateThread
 in module Kernel32.DLL b) with WDosX 97B1 : Could not find
 ReleaseSemaphore in module Kernel32.DLL. NB: Yes KERNEL32.DLL and not
 ..32.WDL!

 Does this mean there are still more Win32 calls in a DMD executable that
 are not supported by WDosX???  If this is the case then I guess it means
 I will be unable to use DMD to create 32bit DOS apps?

 cheers
 Simon

Apparently wdosx does not support multithreaded programming. You could remove all those calls from the Phobos library and recompile it.
May 25 2003
parent Simon J Mackenzie <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> writes:
Walter wrote:
 
 Apparently wdosx does not support multithreaded programming. You could
 remove all those calls from the Phobos library and recompile it.
 
 

Thanks for the info. I'll have a look at the library source and see how far I get with the mods and recompilation. Simon
May 26 2003
prev sibling parent reply "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> writes:
Thanks for info.
I assume that CreateThread is not really used in simple applications, so I
can create stub for it.
I will post it when I do.

Anyhow, I already developed multi-threading kernel for DOSX and it is a
matter of time when I attach it to DMC runtime library. So I assume we could
use multithreading even in plain DOSX.

And about WDOSX's stubit: it really complains about .DLL, but this means
that first it searched through .WDL module and then tried resolve externals
with REAL DLL name (in file it is KERNEL32.DLL)

Nic Tiger.

"Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:baqcgk$1avt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi Nic,
 I assume that WDosX is not designed to be used with a DMD executable.
 When I run stubit -nowfse hello.exe (dmd hello.d from the samples\d
 directory) it seems happy enough but I get the following runtime errors
 with hello.exe. a) with your *.wdl files : Could not find CreateThread
 in module Kernel32.DLL b) with WDosX 97B1 : Could not find
 ReleaseSemaphore in module Kernel32.DLL. NB: Yes KERNEL32.DLL and not
 ..32.WDL!

 Does this mean there are still more Win32 calls in a DMD executable that
 are not supported by WDosX???  If this is the case then I guess it means
 I will be unable to use DMD to create 32bit DOS apps?

 cheers
 Simon




 Nic Tiger wrote:
 D is not directly supported under DOSX, but you could make DMD binaries


 under DOS by using modified WDOSX.

 For details, look for message 'Re: Using DMC from DOS' in "c++.announce"
 news-group.

 WDOSX is obviously slower than Doug Huffman's DOSX (by my estimations,


 twice slower), but it supports DLLs 'natively'.
 In order to make DMD produce DOSX executables the run-time library


 rewritten and appropriate startup module written. And in addition to


 Walter should add DOSX model for compilation.

 I am going to rewrite RTL for DOSX but this will be little later. I


 will be very busy in next 2-3 months.

 Nic Tiger.

 "Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
 news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
What would the port involve?

Regards, Simon, potential DeeVohTee



May 26 2003
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
I am intrigued by the effort you put into DOSX. While I believe that DOSX is
a great product, and the best DOS extender by far, I also think that their
time has past. What keeps you developing for it?

"Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> wrote in message
news:bauocv$3rs$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Thanks for info.
 I assume that CreateThread is not really used in simple applications, so I
 can create stub for it.
 I will post it when I do.

 Anyhow, I already developed multi-threading kernel for DOSX and it is a
 matter of time when I attach it to DMC runtime library. So I assume we

 use multithreading even in plain DOSX.

 And about WDOSX's stubit: it really complains about .DLL, but this means
 that first it searched through .WDL module and then tried resolve

 with REAL DLL name (in file it is KERNEL32.DLL)

 Nic Tiger.

May 27 2003
parent reply "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> writes:
I have several reasons:

1) It is stable by itself (it doesn't introduce its own bugs as Windows
does), and my own bug I can always find and fix

2) I have sophisticated GUI developed from scratch with usage of
inheritance, so I don't need Windows GUI. In fact the only plus in Windows
(that I haven't yet have in DOSX) is visual development tools. But this can
be done in DOSX either

3) DOSX has not (or almost has not) performance shortcomings in comparison
to Windows. On the other hand I have all resources in my disposal in DOSX.
The (fixable) problem I encounter now is alignment problem. It seems that
DMC needs controlled alignment (it is crucial for SIMD code).

About performance, I compiled XVID codec for DOSX and it runs about 5%
faster in DOSX than in Windows (and when assembler is switched off, it runs
30-40% faster!)

4) I develop specialized systems, such as flight data ground-based
processing system or hardware modeling systems

5) There is no way to get good Real-Time performance in Windows even on
top-most CPUs (I tried PIII 1000 and P4 2400). The accuracy of Windows timer
is terrible. On the other hand I can do all hardware jobs from DOSX easily
which is required for controlling missile guidance system in real-time, for
example.

6) Most of issues of Windows are applicable for Linux too. In addition to
this, X in Linux is *very* slow (in fact, inappropriately slow). The
solution I see is to implement my own GUI in Linux, but this will be
effectively the same as DOSX. The other problem with Linux is GCC. If I had
DMC working for Linux, I think I could port all my development from DOSX to
Linux for several weeks, but with GCC's inline assembler it seems
impossible.

Sincerely yours,
Nic Tiger.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bb1crt$2epd$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I am intrigued by the effort you put into DOSX. While I believe that DOSX

 a great product, and the best DOS extender by far, I also think that their
 time has past. What keeps you developing for it?

 "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> wrote in message
 news:bauocv$3rs$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Thanks for info.
 I assume that CreateThread is not really used in simple applications, so


 can create stub for it.
 I will post it when I do.

 Anyhow, I already developed multi-threading kernel for DOSX and it is a
 matter of time when I attach it to DMC runtime library. So I assume we

 use multithreading even in plain DOSX.

 And about WDOSX's stubit: it really complains about .DLL, but this means
 that first it searched through .WDL module and then tried resolve

 with REAL DLL name (in file it is KERNEL32.DLL)

 Nic Tiger.


May 27 2003
next sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <Georg_member pathlink.com> writes:
I have a fellow consultant who helps machine shops, labs, and
processing plants with automating legacy hardware, custom
data gathering, alarms, and general automation.

He uses second-hand PCs, MSDOS or freeware dos, and custom
hardware. The PCs normally do only one thing, and run only
one program 24h/d.

This saves his clients loads of money compared to "proper"
solutions. Both in hardware and in software costs. He cites:

- Easy to find programmers
- tools and practices are well known, hence bug-free
- your program can use the machine as it wishes
- no complicated operating system issues (windows, linux)
- TTY UI is sufficient for most cases (often even no UI)
- Char based UI or TTY UI are quick and trivial to do

For the few cases he really needs a graphical ui, he programs
one from scratch, often as character based -- with less work
than merely using Windows widgets.

They currently use C, Pascal, ASM. They'd use Forth for some
projects but it's too hard to find programmers.

----

What I think is, they should use D instead of C and Pascal.
But then they'd need a dos extender, right? 
May 28 2003
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bb1sm8$c8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 What I think is, they should use D instead of C and Pascal.
 But then they'd need a dos extender, right?

That's correct.
May 30 2003
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Your reasons are smart, compelling, and sensible. -Walter

BTW, your reason for not using linux was the inline assembler. I agree that
the pain of converting to D for linux has the inline assembler! So is it
possible that D for linux will suffice?
May 30 2003
parent reply "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> writes:
I would like DMC for Linux.

Anyway for current need we cannot afford developing Linux versions of our
systems because we have not enough users capable of working in Linux (esp.,
sys admins to maintain Linux network; for now they use Novell for DOS/Win32,
I doubt whether they have enough qualification to study Linux or other
*nix )

As for foreign (outside Russia) customers, we currently have no new
aircrafts to sell, and all previous ones are suited well with DOSX/Win32
versions.

Though I am highly interested in moving my development to D, it is very
constrained due to missing DOSX support.
As for migrating to Linux, I am afraid to change two things at once:
Language and Platform. It would be good for me to make intermediate port of
my systems with DMC for Linux and then develop system anew in D with all
three platforms DOSX/Win32/Linux in mind.

Nic Tiger.
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bb8aft$2b8u$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Your reasons are smart, compelling, and sensible. -Walter

 BTW, your reason for not using linux was the inline assembler. I agree

 the pain of converting to D for linux has the inline assembler! So is it
 possible that D for linux will suffice?

May 31 2003
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Ok, I understand where you're coming from now. -Walter
May 31 2003
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
 Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
 What would the port involve?

It would not be difficult, but you're the first to express any interest in it.
May 20 2003
parent reply "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> writes:
I was the first interested in D for DOSX, but I never expressed it :-).

Nic Tiger.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:badtq7$4f5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
 news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
 Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
 What would the port involve?

It would not be difficult, but you're the first to express any interest in it.

May 20 2003
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
I forgot, there's another problem. DOSX doesn't support 80 bit reals
(primarilly so it can run on machines without a coprocessor).

"Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> wrote in message
news:baeua5$190m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I was the first interested in D for DOSX, but I never expressed it :-).

 Nic Tiger.

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:badtq7$4f5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
 news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
 Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
 What would the port involve?

It would not be difficult, but you're the first to express any interest


 it.


May 21 2003
parent reply "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> writes:
I know, and I successfully lived for last 4 years without long double in
DOSX.

It would be good to have 80-bit float, but certainly not mandating.

Nic Tiger.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:baghne$2u4o$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I forgot, there's another problem. DOSX doesn't support 80 bit reals
 (primarilly so it can run on machines without a coprocessor).

 "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> wrote in message
 news:baeua5$190m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I was the first interested in D for DOSX, but I never expressed it :-).

 Nic Tiger.

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:badtq7$4f5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
 news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
 Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
 What would the port involve?

It would not be difficult, but you're the first to express any



 in
 it.



May 21 2003
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
The trouble is a lot of dependencies on that existing has crept into the
compiler & libraries. Not impossible to fix, just a substantial amount of
work.

"Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> wrote in message
news:bahib5$shh$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I know, and I successfully lived for last 4 years without long double in
 DOSX.

 It would be good to have 80-bit float, but certainly not mandating.

 Nic Tiger.

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:baghne$2u4o$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I forgot, there's another problem. DOSX doesn't support 80 bit reals
 (primarilly so it can run on machines without a coprocessor).

 "Nic Tiger" <tiger7 progtech.ru> wrote in message
 news:baeua5$190m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I was the first interested in D for DOSX, but I never expressed it



 Nic Tiger.

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:badtq7$4f5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Simon J Mackenzie" <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
 news:bac9ap$1jd4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm wanting to try out D with DOSX.
 Has anyone ported the D to DOSX yet?
 What would the port involve?

It would not be difficult, but you're the first to express any



 in
 it.




May 22 2003
parent Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> writes:
Walter wrote:
 The trouble is a lot of dependencies on that existing has crept into the
 compiler & libraries. Not impossible to fix, just a substantial amount of
 work.

Depandence? In compiler is understandable, but in libararies? Why hot make a special compiler mode which would replace every occurence of "real" with a "double"? This would also be appreciated by some freaks outside DOS. :> -i.
May 22 2003