Core i7 LoseThos

LoseThos · Post by **LoseThos** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:06 pm

I got my core i7 machine working. Discovered issues with my CD-ROM bootloader. Might inhibit from working for you. It's a pain, but you have to look-up I/O ports for the CD-ROM and hard drive and type them in. (My bootloaders don't use the BIOS, but do direct PIO ATA/ATAPI commands.)

Core i7 took some adjustments, but it's okay. Now can acces up to 128 Gig of RAM, too. Had some bugs Mallocing more than 4 Gig.

I made a demo finding primes using 8 threads.

Some confusion exists on this site.

One dude prolly looked at LoseThos code and saw statements outside functions. Yeah, I wrote my own compiler, moron -- accused me of not knowing how to program. Anybody who can not imagine writing a compiler is probably not fit to write an operating system! ( How else would you support envirnment variables and scripting) I'm on disability because I'm crazy and imagine you guys talking about me.

Statements outside functions execute in order when the program is compiled (malloc compilation mode) or when loaded (static compiled mode).

The compiler is 64-bit x86_64 and is not an interpreter.

Tasks have heaps, instead of applications. So tasks call malloc and your memory stays around until freed or the task is killed. Memory is not freed when you end an application (unless you Freed() it).

Tasks have compiler symbol tables that stick around like environment variables. When you compile a function, it goes in the symbol table and it's code stays in memory. When LoseThos scans for a symbol, it checks the parent if not found locally.

My compiler skips linking and can place code directly into malloced RAM ready to execute. Or, it can make a LoseThos binary file (no objs) that can be loaded. That's know as static compilation.

LoseThos source files are graphics and text. The text has formatting commands bracked in dollar signs. the must useful thing for source code is being able to put active links to other text in other files -- greatly assists documentation.

There is no "make" for losethos -- just place a bunch of #includes "" into one file. There is no linker.

It's beautifully elegant -- a terminal task enters a mode where it waits for a line of text and feeds it line by line into a compiler that is paused. Statements outside functions execute immediately. Functions are compiled and placed in memory and a symbol goes into the local table so if you type the name of the function it will execute. To run a file, you #include it from the commend line. See how beautifully elegant it is?

Function calls don't need () if there are no parameters or you're happy with the default parameters.

01000101 · Post by **01000101** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:12 pm

and?
I'm not sure what the point of this post was.

So is this a release notice? or just an extremely tiny bug fix announcement? or is it an announcement that you are superior to other programmers who complain about your OS?

LoseThos · Post by **LoseThos** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:18 pm

Bug fix announcment, I guess.

fixed CD-ROM bootloader.

Made fixes to get it working with 4/4 cores/hyperthreads.

Made fixes to get >4 Gig RAM working

I also wanted to comment about the guys discussing "$'s" in make files and not knowing how to program.

i also fixed the mouse. On my new machien you just skip mouse initialization and it works! It didn't work at first because it reported failing mouse start-up, but I just went ahead anyway and it's fine.

JohnnyTheDon · Post by **JohnnyTheDon** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:39 pm

Failed to start on both my Pentium D and Core 2 Extreme computers. Does it run in emulators yet?

LoseThos · Post by **LoseThos** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:43 pm

qemu-system-x86_64 -m 512 -cdrom /tmp/LTCD.ISO -boot d

kubeos · Post by **kubeos** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:24 pm

I like your OS Losethos. It's nice to see something that is so different from all the other OS's out there. I too wrote my own compiler and am currently writing a new version of Kube with it. It's a step back from my gcc version, but in the end it will be completely self hosting, unbloated, and I'll never have to worry what gcc is doing with my code. So yeah, keep up the good work.

chezzestix · Post by **chezzestix** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:36 pm

Different? Try backward. It has some novel ideas here and there but half the stances that are taken set the computer back to the DOS age. The thing feels like one giant compiler and the graphics will inherently amount to nothing due to their nature. Realistic art isn't calculated because real life isn't calculated in fact its very organic. Or at least so deeply calculated that our methods cant gather the full scope. But stepping back from all we can do is not the answer. Its just another way of getting by.

At most your OS is another analogous IBM OS waiting to get ripped by a Bill Gates type and exploited to their own means.

piranha · Post by **piranha** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:57 pm

One dude prolly looked at LoseThos code and saw statements outside functions. Yeah, I wrote my own compiler, moron -- accused me of not knowing how to program. Anybody who can not imagine writing a compiler is probably not fit to write an operating system! ( How else would you support envirnment variables and scripting) I'm on disability because I'm crazy and imagine you guys talking about me.

Would you please shut up about your compiler and how great it is? None of us care.

It's beautifully elegant -- a terminal task enters a mode where it waits for a line of text and feeds it line by line into a compiler that is paused. Statements outside functions execute immediately. Functions are compiled and placed in memory and a symbol goes into the local table so if you type the name of the function it will execute. To run a file, you #include it from the commend line. See how beautifully elegant it is?

Function calls don't need () if there are no parameters or you're happy with the default parameters.

Is it just my tired brain or does that mean that you're OS is completely an interpreted system? Isn't that, ya know, incredibly slow?

No parameters? No arguments? No passing of info? Excuse my saying so, but thats plain stupid.

-JL

JohnnyTheDon · Post by **JohnnyTheDon** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:10 pm

Someone hasn't changed. Why do you have to keep posting about how good your system is?

If it was just about bug fixes and the new release you would have only included:

I got my core i7 machine working. Discovered issues with my CD-ROM bootloader. Might inhibit from working for you. It's a pain, but you have to look-up I/O ports for the CD-ROM and hard drive and type them in. (My bootloaders don't use the BIOS, but do direct PIO ATA/ATAPI commands.)

Core i7 took some adjustments, but it's okay. Now can acces up to 128 Gig of RAM, too. Had some bugs Mallocing more than 4 Gig.

That was info about your OS. The rest was a bunch of bragging.

And your OS is not awesome if it REQUIRES PEOPLE TO LOOK UP IO PORTS! How many people actually know how to do that?

neon · Post by **neon** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:34 pm

That was info about your OS. The rest was a bunch of bragging.

Agreed. Most of everything else he has already said in his last few threads. Its kind of getting repetitive...

LoseThos, your post was better before you edited it.

It is nice to hear that some of the known bugs in your OS is getting fixed though rather then ignoring them.

Troy Martin · Post by **Troy Martin** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:43 pm

LoseThos wrote:Boring usual rant against people who don't think I'm the greatest OS developer ever announcment, I guess.

Fixed.

piranha wrote:but thats plain stupid.

LoseThos: Would you please stop your stupid rants? Or are you dumb enough to write an OS and brag about it repeatedly but ignore the fact that, I don't know, people get tired of hearing it? So I think I speak on behalf of 95% of the community when I say: smarten up.

stephenj · Post by **stephenj** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:48 pm

Is it just my tired brain or does that mean that you're OS is completely an interpreted system? Isn't that, ya know, incredibly slow?

It sounds like an incremental compiler. But labeling it really doesn't matter.

Well, assuming a sane compiler, compartmentalized source code, and a small library. It probably wouldn't be that bad. Not that I'd build a kernel that way.

Error checking/handling is easier with a pre-compile. Optimization... Well, you can do some optimizations in either case that wouldn't be sane in the other.

Love4Boobies · Post by **Love4Boobies** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:41 pm

LoseThos, nobody here has anything against you, personally. You do know a lot more than quite a few around here but it gets on everyone's nerves when you simply brag. Others could do the same - you're not the only one who developed your own tools and you're certainly not the only one to have written your own OS either. There are some pretty experienced people here...

piranha · Post by **piranha** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:36 pm

stephenj wrote:
Is it just my tired brain or does that mean that you're OS is completely an interpreted system? Isn't that, ya know, incredibly slow?
It sounds like an incremental compiler. But labeling it really doesn't matter.

Well, assuming a sane compiler, compartmentalized source code, and a small library. It probably wouldn't be that bad. Not that I'd build a kernel that way.

Error checking/handling is easier with a pre-compile. Optimization... Well, you can do some optimizations in either case that wouldn't be sane in the other.

Ooo, fancy!

But still, it just my immediate evaluation, but it seems to me that making the OS load that kindof code would slow things down quite mucho. I mean, a program doing that is fine, but an OS?

-JL

OrOS · Post by **OrOS** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:51 pm

LoseThos, why not just spend the rest of your days composing your lovely music (http://www.youtube.com/user/losethos) and departing these boards? Or, petition to have it turned into LoseThos Religious Teachings Board.

OSDev.org

Core i7 LoseThos

Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos

Re: Core i7 LoseThos