From: nowhere@never.at   
      
   On 22/03/2023 23:34, muta...@gmail.com wrote:   
      
   >>>> me too like to see attempts to create an UEFI compliant OS from scratch   
   >>>> w/o reusing C-libraries nor copies from already existing Lonnix/M$.   
      
   >>> What's wrong with using a C library to do the UEFI calls?   
   >>> easy answer: it is C, aka limited+bloated+weird HLL-stuff.   
      
   > Like UEFI itself?   
      
   yes.   
      
   > The C library that I use that wraps the UEFI calls is 46k in total   
   > (executable).   
      
   > I suspect the requirements for UEFI are a modern machine   
   > with much more than 46k of RAM.   
      
   it's unfortunately the other way around:   
   I can't buy any new PC-hardware w/o UEFI on it.   
   an alternative option would be Raspberry Pi II :)   
      
   > You could use the generated assembler, and you could trim   
   > it down, but is there a purpose to that?   
      
   there's is no way to trim C-created code. Concept of C is wrong.   
      
   my OS need the BIOS only to load the first 1024 byte, it then deploys   
   itself with everything required incl. Debugger, GUI and device drivers.   
   So my Function-Call link is less than 46k namely just 2 byte:   
      
   mov eax,...;all parameters are in registers either VAL or PTR.   
   int 0x7f   ;works in all CPU modes except BigReal(RM16,32bit CS).   
   ...........;returned parameters are in registers by VAL or PTR   
      
   > You mentioned you want to see "attempts" (multiple, and   
   > presumably in assembler) - why? Are you going to use them,   
   > or you just want to look at them, even if they all have the   
   > same design?   
      
   I'm interested how and where to start such an attempt, but I wouldn't   
   "use" it because my program style was/is uncommon anyway.   
   for now I feel too old for a new start, but if all stars align ...   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)