OSDev.org

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:37 pm**

Well as you seem to be having more trouble then its worth here is a link to a cross compiler created by another member of the board.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:28 am**

Okay I think I had more luck downloading the packages manually and extracting them rather than using Cygwin's setup. Everything seems to be working now. I removed Borland's MAKE files and etc from my environment variables also. Thanks guys.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:43 pm**

I am not sure if this will help, but its how to compile menuet programs with gcc + other compilers, as menuet users bin files, it it may help ?.
http://diamondz.land.ru/hll/hll_eng.htm#gcc

Posted: **Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:54 am**

XCHG wrote:...the only thing that would help me is to give me a step-by-step instruction from where you download the Cygwin's setup file to what packages you download, what you will do after that and etc.

That is exactly what GCC Cross-Compiler is.

1.5 Requirements lists a link to the Cygwin page, that you need only the basic packages, GCC and make, and that you should clean your environment if you had other compiler suites installed previously.

2. Step 1 - Bootstrap specifies exactly where to get the source for binutils and GCC.

The actual to-do is as simple as it could be made while still being somewhat educational about what's going on.

Again, I understand this could take a long time for someone to write and if nobody is willing to help, then I'm fine with it NOT.

As exactly this has been done already, please understand when criticism like the one you voiced is somewhat poorly received.

What follows is not aimed at you specifically, so please don't take (too much) offense.

I just think it's strange how many people try their hands at flat binary, OS development etc., but apparently have either not enough control of their command line interface, can't read a rather plain how-to thoroughly, or both of the above...

Posted: **Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:06 am**

I can build a house... I just need some help swinging this hammer.

It is a big problem... worrying is that nobody seems to be reading the wiki (especially the >READ THIS< pages) except the people who edit it!

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:28 am**

Solar wrote: What follows is not aimed at you specifically, so please don't take (too much) offense.

I just think it's strange how many people try their hands at flat binary, OS development etc., but apparently have either not enough control of their command line interface, can't read a rather plain how-to thoroughly, or both of the above...

In my opinion, having looked at and collected some of your recent posts on the board, they (your posts) are usually nonsense and just for the purpose of criticiseing others. Look at this list for example:

This means that you have too much time in your hands to waste while in the contrary, I have very little; that is why I would not bother reading your nonsense posts and Wiki articles. Almost 70 or 80% of the contents of the GCC Cross Compiler article is BS and a waste of time for the reader to read because of stating facts and useless knowledge.

About this post, I don't see why you would want to reply with yet another useless and pointless text, just to prove that the Wiki article about Cross Compilers is good while I had clearly stated the end of this discussion. For example, Dex's reply was really helpful but yours? I don't see why you would waste so much of your time posting nonsense here when you believe you are actually helping people. Believe me, you are not. Would you like to "help" with another useless post of yours?

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:54 am**

Just a few posts ago you were blaming the GCC Cross-Compiler how-to (which was by no means written only by me) for not being detailed and step-by-step enough, and now you're blaming it for being verbose. What I think of the rest of your post, I will keep to myself.

Some people have bugs in their code. Some people have bugs in their social behaviour.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:04 am**

XCHG wrote:
Solar wrote: What follows is not aimed at you specifically, so please don't take (too much) offense.

I just think it's strange how many people try their hands at flat binary, OS development etc., but apparently have either not enough control of their command line interface, can't read a rather plain how-to thoroughly, or both of the above...

In my opinion, having looked at and collected some of your recent posts on the board, they (your posts) are usually nonsense and just for the purpose of criticiseing others. Look at this list for example:

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15426

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... c&start=15

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 396#110372

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15404

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15331

http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 8&start=15
This means that you have too much time in your hands to waste while in the contrary, I have very little; that is why I would not bother reading your nonsense posts and Wiki articles. Almost 70 or 80% of the contents of the GCC Cross Compiler article is BS and a waste of time for the reader to read because of stating facts and useless knowledge.

About this post, I don't see why you would want to reply with yet another useless and pointless text, just to prove that the Wiki article about Cross Compilers is good while I had clearly stated the end of this discussion. For example, Dex's reply was really helpful but yours? I don't see why you would waste so much of your time posting nonsense here when you believe you are actually helping people. Believe me, you are not. Would you like to "help" with another useless post of yours?

What were the point in those links? I couldn't find anything bad/troll-like about them...

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:17 am**

Solar wrote:Some people have bugs in their code. Some people have bugs in their social behaviour.

Thank god you have both.

Solar wrote:Just a few posts ago you were blaming the GCC Cross-Compiler how-to (which was by no means written only by me) for not being detailed

Yeah I still do. Do you even know what detailed means? Detailed means containing details. Details are useful information that helps somebody understand something better. I would, if I had time, list all the unnecessary lines in that Wiki page and prove to you how useless most of the sentences are there.

This is how "detailed" differs from "useless": Your posts are detailed about useless information. Do you get it now?

JamesM wrote: What were the point in those links? I couldn't find anything bad/troll-like about them...

Just click on the first link. Do you see how Solar has reacted to that situation? In my opinion, if you can't help someone, just simply shut the phuck up and if you can, just do it. Post some informative text or something but don't write crap. Jesus.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:18 pm**

XCHG wrote:
Solar wrote:Some people have bugs in their code. Some people have bugs in their social behaviour.
Thank god you have both.

And so do you, it seems.

Solar wrote:Just a few posts ago you were blaming the GCC Cross-Compiler how-to (which was by no means written only by me) for not being detailed
Yeah I still do. Do you even know what detailed means? Detailed means containing details. Details are useful information that helps somebody understand something better. I would, if I had time, list all the unnecessary lines in that Wiki page and prove to you how useless most of the sentences are there.

This is how "detailed" differs from "useless": Your posts are detailed about useless information. Do you get it now?

I would like to see that list. I have followed that tutorial many times and never thought that it was full of useless information.

JamesM wrote: What were the point in those links? I couldn't find anything bad/troll-like about them...
Just click on the first link. Do you see how Solar has reacted to that situation? In my opinion, if you can't help someone, just simply shut the phuck up and if you can, just do it. Post some informative text or something but don't write crap. Jesus.

Oh wow! All hail the supreme Internet overlord! I knew you were alive somewhere - others disbelieved - heathens!

Seriously, who are you to judge what is a correct and incorrect response? FYI if Solar hadn't got there first I would have posted the exact same reply - someone who writes in caps, can't speak English (a secondary matter) and obviously hasn't read any of the supplied prerequisite material including the thread which quite clearly states that writing a title such as "NEED HELP V. URGENT!!!11" is not a Good Thing.

Almost 70 or 80% of the contents of the GCC Cross Compiler article is BS and a waste of time for the reader to read because of stating facts

Hmmmmmm...

I don't see why you would want to reply with yet another useless and pointless text, just to prove that the Wiki article about Cross Compilers is good while I had clearly stated the end of this discussion.

Maybe your word is not law? He's usurping your authority! :O

Seriously, why would someone want to defend their work against some stupid internet troll who has no time to read materials worked on by others but seems to have plenty of time to rant about it?

Get back under your bridge and emerge another day

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:24 pm**

See this is a post I wont read. It is too long and since you have written it, it will contain no interesting point. I don't know why I should even continue arguing with you two. You really aren't worth my time. Now keep posting here because I won't even read it

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:38 pm**

Brynet-Inc wrote:
How have you gotten this far in life?

OSDev.org

Binary files and GCC