Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!udel!mmdf From: ONM64%DMSWWU1A.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Kai Henningsen) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: PC Minix/64KB limit Message-ID: <8752@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 14 Feb 89 18:41:26 GMT Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU Lines: 32 > From: Andy Tanenbaum > Subject: Re: POSIX and the future of MINIX C > > In article <552@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> hardin@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (David Hardin)> > writes: > >So, in other words, an ANSI Standard C is strongly recommended. Is an ANSI> > >C planned for MINIX 2.0? If so, will the compiler still use EM > No. We have one, but it is too big for the PC. I'll have to stick with the> > current compiler. It does use EM, as do all our other compilers, however.> > > > Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) That's just once too much to take. I really am unable to see why Minix/PC can't support large Applications in the same way that Minix/ST does. As I see it, Minix/ST understands the file format of TOS (.PRG files), especially the relocation info. It does have some performance problems during a fork, but that's better than nothing. Well guys, MS-DOS also has a format for large files with relocation info (.EXE), why not use it? Since Minix/ST seems to have no problems at all with this scheme, I do not understand why we don't use it on the PCs. Maybe I should have titled this with "flame" ... Kai Disclaimer: This was written by my computer, not by me, so blame him for any faults.