hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) (01/12/90)
Does anyone know if there are any compiler options with MSC5.1 which let the compiler generate 386 specific instructions where appropriate. The documentation I have only shows the /G2 option for generating 286 code. Specifically, it would be nice to take advantage of 32 integer multiplies and shifts, or is this something the compiler does automatically? Thanks, Herb Lison
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (01/12/90)
In article <13346@garnet.BBN.COM> hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) writes: >Does anyone know if there are any compiler options with MSC5.1 which >let the compiler generate 386 specific instructions where appropriate. >The documentation I have only shows the /G2 option for generating >286 code. Specifically, it would be nice to take advantage of >32 integer multiplies and shifts, or is this something the compiler >does automatically? MSC 5.1 will not generate 386 instructions under any circumstances, not automatically, not today, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. MASM 5.1 will generate some of the 386 instructions, but not all. You have to get somebodies (Phar Lap is an example) 386 compiler and DOS extender. Chewey, get us outta here! kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (818)354-8771 Kaleb Keithley
batman@watsci.uwaterloo.ca (Marcell Stoer) (01/12/90)
In article <13346@garnet.BBN.COM> hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) writes: >Does anyone know if there are any compiler options with MSC5.1 which >let the compiler generate 386 specific instructions where appropriate. >The documentation I have only shows the /G2 option for generating >286 code. Specifically, it would be nice to take advantage of >32 integer multiplies and shifts, or is this something the compiler >does automatically? > >Thanks, > >Herb Lison If you want to issue 386 instructions, you will need a compiler that generates 32 bit code. Microsoft has no such compiler. There are companies that provide these though. One is WATCOM ( presently the best C compiler around, refer to BYTE, PC Magazin, INFO World...etc), another is Metaware. These compilers generate 386 (32 bit) specific code that can make use of all the memory your machine has (passed the 640K limit of DOS). To run the executables you will also need a DOS-Extender that can switch your 386 to protected mode in order to make use of the 32 bit utilities. Phar Lap has a good DOS-Extender. These 386 compilers generally cost around $650-900 (think twice) and the DOS-Extender is $495 (when I bought it 2 months ago). If anyone is interested for more info on WATCOM you can e-mail me and I'll pass the info along. -- Marcell BITNET : Batman@Watsci.uwaterloo.ca ===============================================================================
henry@Apple.COM (Peter Henry) (01/12/90)
In article <580@watserv1.waterloo.edu> batman@watsci.UUCP (Marcell Stoer) writes: >If you want to issue 386 instructions, you will need a compiler that >generates 32 bit code. Microsoft has no such compiler. There are companies ... >Phar Lap has a good DOS-Extender. These 386 compilers generally cost around >$650-900 (think twice) and the DOS-Extender is $495 (when I bought it 2 months >ago).> Great! for the price of the compiler and extender, you could just buy UNIX for the 386 (with all the trimmings), get a real 32-bit environment, with compiler (and/or use GCC), and still have money left over... These UNIXes will even support DOSMERGE-style apps that let you run MSDOS programs. Seems to me, if you're willing to spend that kind of money to develop software that won't even run under MSDOS (without the extender), what are you doing running MSDOS as your primary OS in the first place? Get UNIX, and spawn DOS for your word processing/games/spreadsheet etc. (until good ones are written for UNIX)! -Peter Henry (peter@nucleus.apple.com)
dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) (01/12/90)
On a tangent to the previous articles in the series, why are these DOS extenders and things needed anyway??? Almost all of the 386-specific instructions can be executed by the processor in real mode (i.e., under DOS) without any contortions. The only ones requiring protected mode are the funny ones for playing with memory management and task switching. Any DOS program can use the 386's 32-bit registers, extended arithmetic, and new addressing modes. Any DOS program can simply use 32-bit addresses to access extended memory. Borland's Turbo Assembler will let you put 32-bit code in the middle of anything you want. So why aren't compilers available for higher languages that do this? It wouldn't be much work to just have a separate 386-specific version of a compiler's run-time library, but even this would be a big speed boost for math-intensive programs. For a single task, the 386 can run 32-bit code just as well under DOS in real mode, as it can under UNIX, OS/2, or a DOS extender in protected mode. -David Hinds dhinds@portia.stanford.edu
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (01/12/90)
In article <8166@portia.Stanford.EDU> dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) writes: > On a tangent to the previous articles in the series, why are these DOS >extenders and things needed anyway??? ... Any DOS program can simply use >32-bit addresses to access extended memory. In 386 real mode, you can use all of the 32 bit registers but for some reason you can only use 20 bit addresses. Also, in real mode it needs to generate operand and address size override bytes so the code is a lot larger than it would be in protected mode. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."
louk@tslwat.UUCP (Lou Kates) (01/12/90)
In article <580@watserv1.waterloo.edu> batman@watsci.UUCP (Marcell Stoer) writes: >In article <13346@garnet.BBN.COM> hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) writes: >>Does anyone know if there are any compiler options with MSC5.1 which >>let the compiler generate 386 specific instructions where appropriate. >>The documentation I have only shows the /G2 option for generating >>286 code. Specifically, it would be nice to take advantage of One reply mentions that Microsoft C does not generate 386 code but that Watcom and Metaware can and that these can allow you to pass the 640K limit. Its true that you can't generate 386 code on Microsoft C but if the problem is that you need to exceed the 640K limit then you could use the 286 code option and run the result under the Eclipse OS/286 DOS extender which will allow you to run Microsoft C programs up to 16 MB large on a 286 or 386. If you are using a 386 then you will likely want their 386 version OS/386 which will also allow you to run 286 generated code from Microsoft C. Lou Kates, ...!watmath!looking!tslwat!louk, 519-725-0277
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (01/13/90)
In article <580@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, batman@watsci.uwaterloo.ca (Marcell Stoer) writes: > If you want to issue 386 instructions, you will need a [C] compiler that > generates 32 bit code. Microsoft has no such compiler. Maybe you meant to say that Microsoft has no such compiler at a reasonable price. They most certainly *do* have a 32-bit version of their C compiler - it comes with their OS/2 V2.0 development kit (just shipping in the last month). I haven't seen it, not doing OS/2 development, and it's rather expensive (the whole development kit costs $2600, counting documentation, compiler, developer's tools, etc). It's basically the same sort of deal as their earlier SDK's - a premium price to get an early look at the new version of OS/2. But it probably isn't ready for prime time yet. Bruce C. Wright
norsk@sequent.UUCP (Doug Thompson) (01/13/90)
In article <13346@garnet.BBN.COM> hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) writes: >Does anyone know if there are any compiler options with MSC5.1 which >let the compiler generate 386 specific instructions where appropriate. >The documentation I have only shows the /G2 option for generating >286 code. Specifically, it would be nice to take advantage of >32 integer multiplies and shifts, or is this something the compiler >does automatically? > >Thanks, > >Herb Lison MSC 5.1 DOES NOT generate 386 32-bit instructions. -- Douglas Thompson UUCP: ..{tektronix,ogicse,uunet}!sequent!norsk Sequent Computer Systems Phone: (503) 526-5727 15450 SW Koll Parkway !"The scientist builds to learn;the engineer learns in Beaverton OR 97006 !order to build." Fred Brooks
harlow@plains.UUCP (Jay B. Harlow) (01/13/90)
In article <8166@portia.Stanford.EDU> dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) writes: > > On a tangent to the previous articles in the series, why are these DOS >extenders and things needed anyway??? Almost all of the 386-specific >instructions can be executed by the processor in real mode (i.e., under DOS) >without any contortions. The only ones requiring protected mode are the >funny ones for playing with memory management and task switching. Any DOS >program can use the 386's 32-bit registers, extended arithmetic, and new >addressing modes. Any DOS program can simply use 32-bit addresses to access >extended memory. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in Normal real Mode this won't work. as per a recent Magizine article (i forget name of magizine) you can TRICK the 386 into seeing it, only Why? the method they use will not work under Virual-86 mode. under DOS you are restricted to 1M address space. the 386 for compatiblity preserves this restriction (ok you have maybe 64K-16 bytes of extended to use) remember in real mode you are stuck with segment:offset = segment*16+offset, no way past 1M. the trick i mention envolves going to protected mode, loading a descriptor that has a very large (end of extended memory) limit to FS or GS, then clearing the PE bit in CR0, with mov CR0,eax Gee is this why intel says to load descriptors with 64K limit before switch to real mode? ;-) on same note can we create a 32-bit REAL mode? ;-) > Borland's Turbo Assembler will let you put 32-bit code >in the middle of anything you want. So why aren't compilers available for >higher languages that do this? It wouldn't be much work to just have a >separate 386-specific version of a compiler's run-time library, but even >this would be a big speed boost for math-intensive programs. For a single >task, the 386 can run 32-bit code just as well under DOS in real mode, as >it can under UNIX, OS/2, or a DOS extender in protected mode. > >-David Hinds > dhinds@portia.stanford.edu from my understanding 32-bit code under dos is a hair slower then under unix (protected mode), ok on unix you have other tasks(maybe) running. Jay -- Jay B. Harlow <nuharlow@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!plains!nuharlow (UUCP) nuharlow@plains (Bitnet) Of course the above is personal opinion, And has no bearing on reality...
fredb@llama.rtech.UUCP (Fred Buechler) (01/13/90)
In article <13346@garnet.BBN.COM> hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) writes: >Does anyone know if there are any compiler options with MSC5.1 which >let the compiler generate 386 specific instructions where appropriate. I just read in a recent (1/8/90) Infoworld that Microsoft is now shipping the OS/2 2.0 Software Developers Kit. Included in the kit are 32 bit versions of MSC 5.1 and MASM 5.1 with a 32 bit debugger. The 2.0 release of OS/2 contains 32 bit code and will only run on 32 bit (386/486) systems. Fred.
rob@prism.TMC.COM (01/13/90)
>Does anyone know if there are any compiler options with MSC5.1 which >let the compiler generate 386 specific instructions where appropriate. >The documentation I have only shows the /G2 option for generating >286 code. Specifically, it would be nice to take advantage of >32 integer multiplies and shifts, or is this something the compiler >does automatically? To my knowledge, MSC 5.1 has no support for the 386, though a 386-version of it is included with the OS/2 2.0 SDK kit (yours for only $2600). Several other companies (Watcom, Metaware, etc.) sell C compilers that take advantage of the 386.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/13/90)
In article <3114@plains.UUCP> harlow@plains.UUCP (Jay B. Harlow) writes: | from my understanding 32-bit code under dos is a hair slower then under | unix (protected mode), ok on unix you have other tasks(maybe) running. I can't say for sure, but the speed of 32 bit code over 16 bit comde under DOS can be up to 2:1 faster for some things. Note "can be." It all depends on what you're doing. I have some documentation which indicates that PKZIP runs in 32 bit mode on a 386, and that there's an option to force it to run in 286 mode. I don't have any details other than that. Supposedly it make about a 40% difference. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (01/13/90)
In article <3416@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: >In article <580@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, batman@watsci.uwaterloo.ca (Marcell Stoer) writes: >> If you want to issue 386 instructions, you will need a [C] compiler that >> generates 32 bit code. Microsoft has no such compiler. > >Maybe you meant to say that Microsoft has no such compiler at a reasonable >price. They most certainly *do* have a 32-bit version of their C compiler - >it comes with their OS/2 V2.0 development kit (just shipping in the last >month). I haven't seen it, not doing OS/2 development, and it's rather >expensive (the whole development kit costs $2600, counting documentation, >compiler, developer's tools, etc). > Which means that they (Microsoft) doesn't have it. Specifically, I can't run down to Egghead or Software Etc and pick up a copy. Not only that, but this might imply that you have to run the compiler under OS/2, which not every has, or wants, especially if you are developing for the DOS environment... Chewey, get us outta here! kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (818)354-8771 Kaleb Keithley
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (01/13/90)
In article <8166@portia.Stanford.EDU> dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) writes: > > On a tangent to the previous articles in the series, why are these DOS >extenders and things needed anyway??? >[Statements I agree with] >Any DOS >program can use the 386's 32-bit registers, extended arithmetic, and new >addressing modes. But with the cost of having to put prefix bytes on each such instruction >Any DOS program can simply use 32-bit addresses to access >extended memory. Not true. While you can do 32 bit address calculation, the resulting address must be 16 bits (before adding the contents of the 16 bit segment selector). To quote the Intel 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual, "Unlike the 8086 and 80286, 32-bit effective addresses can be generated (via the address-size prefix); however, the value of a 32-bit address may not exceed 65535 without causing an exception. >For a single >task, the 386 can run 32-bit code just as well under DOS in real mode, as >it can under UNIX, OS/2, or a DOS extender in protected mode. Not true, for you still have to deal with 64k segments and suffer the additional code size of those prefix bytes. The linear addressing is a big win for many memory intensive programs. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
pabres13@pc.usl.edu (Joubert John V.) (01/13/90)
Get a copy of the newest PC Week magazine. In it there is an article
about a 386 extender for MSC.
--
John Joubert | /\ | /\ | _
Internet: pabres13@usl-pc.usl.edu | \|<>|>|> \|<>|>|><`|`|
GENIE: J.JOUBERT |--/|-------/|------------
| \/ \/joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) (01/16/90)
I am not an assembler programmer (yet?), but this kludge might just work.
Look up the opcodes to all the instructions you wish to use in some 386
reference manual. Then define these as macros for the assembler with define
byte operator. This will directlly insert the code into your assembler.
Hope this works (feedback welcome!)
Jochen Fritz ("Noah")
joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu