RE: [MiNT] Incorporating other calls into the

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Guido Flohr
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 12:49 PM
> To: MiNT mailing list
> Subject: Re: [MiNT] Incorporating other calls into the
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 12:30:29PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > GEMDOS binaries and DR object files are the same format.
>
> Fine.
>
> >
> > > Any idea how to handle pc relative relocations?  Lose?
> >
> > If it's relative, it doesn't need fixup, right?
>
> I'm not sure whether there may ever be pc rel relocations for MiNT a.out
> object files.  If they exist we lose because I don't know how I should
> squeeze that into the DR relocation concept.
>
> > > What does the index file look like?
> >
> > You mean in the archive file? -- I can try to find that, but
> it's certainly
> > not used by PureC.
>
> It's not so important.  Lonny says that he has some kind of ranlib for
> these archives.  He can always run it over the converted lib.  BTW, I'm
> not sure if Lonny is talking about some Borland product.  From what I
> understood I think he needs that index entry.
>
> BTW, you remember our `dropping PureC' discussion?  If I manage to write
> that conversion tool, would it be an option to convert the MiNTLib instead
> of keeping native support?  That would be at the prize of a performance
> penalty caused by the different calling conventions but I think that this
> will be weighed up by the generally better optimization job that gcc does
> compared to PureC.

It certainly sounds like a good plan -- but keep in mind that at least the
header files would have to be acceptable for Pure-C.

Of course the next step would be to move as much as possible into shared
libraries...