OSDev.org

I'm on x86 system runing XP, 233MHz

You're lucky (and so am I), take them from here (as and ld only).

DavidBG wrote:I'm on x86 system runing XP, 233MHz.

I guess that's the main problem - your computer seems pretty outdated, and you're running WinXP on this outdated machine. How much RAM do you have? It seems you are just running out of resources when compiling a cross compiler.

I would suggest using a more powerful machine for compilation - and replacing this overloades WinXP with some small Linux distribution...

And of course you are right - the "damn" tutorial in the "damn" wiki doesn't give any information on how much resources it needs to build a cross compiler, and it doesn't tell you what to do if compilation just stops without any errors. Unfortunately many people in this forum still believe that the wiki is a holy book that tells you everything you need to know for OS development.

leledumbo wrote:You're lucky (and so am I), take them from here (as and ld only).

There's no plain elf target in there, only hosted crosscompilers - A bad recommendation.

I'm on x86 system runing XP, 233MHz.

Running XP on a bottom-end pentium 2 or worse is asking for trouble - it's well below the recommendation (at 300 MHz). You should downgrade to 2K (P1-133 or better) or even '98 (which has the additional advantage of allowing you to poke hardware from a hosted environment)

Unfortunately many people in this forum still believe that the wiki is a holy book that tells you everything you need to know for OS development.

Unfortunately many people are too ignorant to browse it and ask the stupid questions over and over. If given the choice, there's a 90% chance the problem exists between the keyboard and the chair, and 10% it's in the wiki. Also, the conditional probability that the wiki is at fault given that the person ignores forum rules is below 1%, which is exactly what happened - It is fair to assume the wiki to be correct until proven otherwise. And the proof in question, is still completely without evidence. As long as the OP doesn't go beyond the statements that basically summarize to "it just doesn't work", the attitude (spoken, in part or not) that the OP is an idiot because he can't or refuses to back up his claims is only logical.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us.

There's no plain elf target in there, only hosted crosscompilers - A bad recommendation.

i386-linux-ld produces plain ELF, I used it for my OS.

XenOS wrote:And of course you are right - the "damn" tutorial in the "damn" wiki doesn't give any information on how much resources it needs to build a cross compiler...

...which is because it is a generic tutorial, resources required vary wildly depending on versions involved, and any halfway modern machine (as in, this millenium) should be adequate for the task.

...and it doesn't tell you what to do if compilation just stops without any errors.

If compilation stops without errors, it's complete. If completion is not complete, you will get an error message.

piranha wrote:Honestly, english is a worse enough language without taking words out of it.

Which do you like, I can understand some Spanish, if you prefer. Is a different language your native one?

leledumbo wrote:

I'm on x86 system runing XP, 233MHz

You're lucky (and so am I), take them from here (as and ld only).

Thank you. That pretty much was all I needed. I don't know why I couldn't find that.

XenOS wrote:

DavidBG wrote:I'm on x86 system runing XP, 233MHz.

I guess that's the main problem - your computer seems pretty outdated, and you're running WinXP on this outdated machine. How much RAM do you have? It seems you are just running out of resources when compiling a cross compiler.

I would suggest using a more powerful machine for compilation - and replacing this overloades WinXP with some small Linux distribution...

I have 64 megabytes of RAM. A lot of it taken by system and other processes.

I tried feather linux and hated it. But I think that was because it booted from a CD not the hard-drive. And yes, a 233MHz is the minimum system XP will run on, but I do not have 98 anymore, I'll see if I can find a different small Linux distro, though the only one I really like is Linux Mint, and that may be too big.

Anyway, I have a 1.6 GHz, but I need to use the 233 at the moment on Windows; however I may check out Linux later.

Solar wrote: If compilation stops without errors, it's complete. If completion is not complete, you will get an error message.

I think it hangs, but I'm not sure.

Thanks for all recommendations, etc., especially to leledumbo for the link.

David

Combuster wrote:As long as the OP doesn't go beyond the statements that basically summarize to "it just doesn't work", the attitude (spoken, in part or not) that the OP is an idiot because he can't or refuses to back up his claims is only logical.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us.

I missed this. I really can't give you any proof unless you'd like to see my computer in action. As to my being an i----, well, I don't believe so, but of course, I can't prove that to you or anybody.

David

leledumbo wrote:

There's no plain elf target in there, only hosted crosscompilers - A bad recommendation.

i386-linux-ld produces plain ELF, I used it for my OS.

Just because it can produce a plain ELF doesn't mean it's a good idea to use it. Right now you probably can't see the problems you'll run into in the future with a hosted cross-compiler, but a lot of us have been there and done that already. Having a pure compiler without any OS-specific host (eg, i585-elf) is just plain easier in the long run

Evening chum!

Reading this thread, I do wonder why you're trying to build your OS on that particular machine. If you've got 8, why not build and develop your OS on a computer more suited to the task, then transfer the binary over (via a network, or serial at worst)?

DavidBG wrote:

piranha wrote:Please, for my sake, read the damn wiki, follow the damn instructions, compile the damn compiler on your windows/mac/linux/bsd/etc, w/e.

I really think you should watch your language. Using word's like that are...

Next time I come to your home, I'll tell you what to say, what language to speak, what etiquette to use at the dinner table. How does that sound?

I cannot EVER imagine ANYONE being truly offended by the word "damn", and if you do, you ARE an idiot, and should please:

Anyway, thanks all for the input, criticisms, etc.

David

No problems.

Oh, and learn to use apostrophe's. They don't need to be used whenever you use plural's. They are used for ownership of thing's (possession) or truncation's / abbreviation's.

James

Combuster wrote:Unfortunately many people are too ignorant to browse it and ask the stupid questions over and over. If given the choice, there's a 90% chance the problem exists between the keyboard and the chair, and 10% it's in the wiki. Also, the conditional probability that the wiki is at fault given that the person ignores forum rules is below 1%, which is exactly what happened - It is fair to assume the wiki to be correct until proven otherwise. And the proof in question, is still completely without evidence. As long as the OP doesn't go beyond the statements that basically summarize to "it just doesn't work", the attitude (spoken, in part or not) that the OP is an idiot because he can't or refuses to back up his claims is only logical.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us.

Read my post again. I never claimed the wiki is incorrect. In fact the wiki is a very helpful resource and it contains a lot of helpful information for OS developers. But that doesn't mean that it answers every question that might occur. The answer to the OP's question was not in the wiki, simpy because the wiki doesn't contain any information of the hardware resources that are needed to build a cross compiler. This proves that there are questions that are not answered by the wiki, which is all I claimed.

And it is anything but helpful to insult the OP or to post a link to the wiki which the OP has already read without finding the answer. If you still think that there is any helpful information on this problem in the wiki, just prove it.

Solar wrote:...which is because it is a generic tutorial, resources required vary wildly depending on versions involved, and any halfway modern machine (as in, this millenium) should be adequate for the task.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant to say. A generic tutorial covers all the standard problems and question that occur frequently. But there are many odd problems out there that are not covered by a generic tutorial, so they can not be answered by just pointing to the wiki.

If compilation stops without errors, it's complete. If completion is not complete, you will get an error message.

I wouldn't agree with that. Of course there are cases in which a program simply crashes without an error message, simply because it runs out of memory or whatever resource and hangs before it can print any kind of message. I have seen this many times, and it is very likely to happen with the OP's compiler. So the description "It just stops without any error message." is perfectly fine, as this is exactly what happens.

DavidBG wrote:I have 64 megabytes of RAM. A lot of it taken by system and other processes.

That's definitely not enough for this task, and probably a cross compiler will also fail if you try to run it on this machine with WinXP. If you really don't have any alternative to this machine, the only way to use it is to install a different, "lightweight" OS. BTW, I think I still have some GCC / Binutils / GDB on my computer, compiled for CygWin host and either i686-pc-elf or x86_64-pc-elf targets. Each of them is about 200MB, and I doubt that they will work on your machine, but in I could upload them if you are really willing to try.

Totally agree with XenOs, particulary with the first part of his reply.
Nervous reply seems not to take in account the real message

JamesM wrote:Reading this thread, I do wonder why you're trying to build your OS on that particular machine. If you've got 8, why not build and develop your OS on a computer more suited to the task, then transfer the binary over (via a network, or serial at worst)?

This computer is a laptop; the only laptop I have. (Actually I have a 32MB RAM 200MHz laptop, but that's even worse; the others are desktops.) I wanted to be able to compile on the go.

JamesM wrote:Next time I come to your home, I'll tell you what to say, what language to speak, what etiquette to use at the dinner table. How does that sound?

You would probably be wrong half the time...

JamesM wrote:I cannot EVER imagine ANYONE being truly offended by the word "damn", and if you do, you ARE an idiot, and should please:

I suppose, I'm not honestly offended, (I don't think I ever am, I don't exaclty boil over ever time someone says that or calls me an i----) I just don't like it when people use those words while talking to me. Of course, I can't tell any of you what to do or say; I suppose I can look over it.

JamesM wrote:

Anyway, thanks all for the input, criticisms, etc.

David

No problems.

Oh, and learn to use apostrophe's. They don't need to be used whenever you use plural's. They are used for ownership of thing's (possession) or truncation's / abbreviation's.

What does all that mean?

XenOS wrote:If you still think that there is any helpful information on this problem in the wiki, just prove it.

No, the wiki is great, many a problem I have solved by reading; and I want to thank you all for creating such a helpful resource. (Best on the web) I don't want to come across sounding like I don't appreciate all the work that went into that.

Perhaps, we could add something in the troubleshooting section about reported problems on computers with less than say 128MB RAM on XP so people won't ask again? I don't think anyone will, though, as most people probably don't have an old computer like this with XP on it.

XenOS wrote:BTW, I think I still have some GCC / Binutils / GDB on my computer, compiled for CygWin host and either i686-pc-elf or x86_64-pc-elf targets. Each of them is about 200MB, and I doubt that they will work on your machine, but in I could upload them if you are really willing to try.

Well, I might as well face it. You are probably right about is not working. Even if you gave me those, I may not have the resources to use them. I'll have to see if I can downgrade to a lighter OS, I just need it be Windows compatible and that will be hard if not impossible, I just wish I could find a 98 CD. I think I have an upgrade 98 CD but no Windows 95.

Thanks
David

Ok, I assume that you are new to the internet, or at least, new to forums because you are taking everything we say literally.
Almost all the posts in this thread have been said with a slight amount of sarcasm (or in JamesM's case, a lot).

Essentially, we suggest that you read the Wiki SEVERAL times, following the instructions to the letter, and if there is an error that you cannot fix, that you post the entire output so we can point out where you should look.
If you cannot do that correctly, you lack the Required Knowlege stated in the forum rules and should do some more reading until you do.

Mods: Could I request a lock?