Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Intel-8086/80186-Assembler for System-V available ?
Message-ID: <_:A6TTA@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 9 Oct 90 20:57:40 GMT
References: <:C96DR1@xds13.ferranti.com> <15919@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <+3A6RL4@xds13.ferranti.com> <15925@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 25

In article <15925@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
> We are zeroing in on something other than the original question.

No, we're not. The problem at hand is doing x86 development on System V.
It is not clear to me that the "modern" intel 86 tools (including the
current 80286 and 80386 tool sets) are the best way. In fact, if I may
be allowed a mild flame, the UNXUDI method is totally barmy, and we
REALLY need native 80386 tools to get decent performance and functionality.
But given that Intel has decided that DOS is the premier development
platform and decided to load all their development tools down with 64K
segments and 1M total address space... don't throw away those old intel
80286 tools, yet.

> Who
> has seen how PLM86, for instance, behaves on the 286 platform?  I still
> bet they don't use more than a meg.

I'm sure they don't... but our copy of PLM86 from the good old days does.

I'm saying that if you want to do x86 development on an 80[34]86 running
UNIX, doing it in a DOS emulation mode is crazy and the older intel tools
are far better suited to the task.

They're still not perfect: they use up huge amounts of VM because of the
limits of x286emul. But they're better than nothing.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com