Related articles |
---|
[4 earlier articles] |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted cr88192@hotmail.com (cr88192) (2007-04-06) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-04-06) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-08) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-04-08) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted nmh@t3x.org (Nils M Holm) (2007-04-08) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted ang.usenet@gmail.com (Aaron Gray) (2007-04-11) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-11) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted lpsantil@gmail.com (lpsantil@gmail.com) (2007-04-13) |
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk (2007-04-13) |
Re: Windows executables, was Free x86 C compiler wanted marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-04-14) |
From: | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 11 Apr 2007 23:35:05 -0400 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 07-04-015 07-04-019 07-04-024 07-04-025 |
Keywords: | MSDOS, comment |
Posted-Date: | 11 Apr 2007 23:35:05 EDT |
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
(snip)
> Right, John. AFAIR COM programs are restricted to the small memory
> model, where everything resides in a single 64K segment. The segment
> registers usually are left unchanged during execution, just as in the 32
> bit flat model.
As far as I know, COM programs aren't restricted to 64K, but
there is no DOS support for more. If they use more, the program
must do all the management needed. Also, I believe that at
least the later versions of DOS and most Windows will load EXE
files with a COM extension. That was done for FORMAT, for
example.
-- glen
[That agrees with my recollection, but this is getting far afield of
compilers. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.