You already have the compiler you need - WATCOM includes a 32 bit DOS
extender. The following code allocates a 4MB buffer - it can easily
be changed to 16MB. I only have 8MB on my PC so I could not test this
fully.

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------*/
/*                                                                   */
/* Save this into a file called main.c                               */
/*                                                                   */
/* To compile this enter :                                           */
/*    wcl386 /l=dos4g /d2 main.c                                     */
/*                                                                   */
/* This compiles the program using the DOS4GW 32bit DOS extender     */
/* supplied with WATCOM.                                             */
/*                                                                   */
/* To run once complied enter :                                      */
/*    main                                                           */
/*                                                                   */
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------*/

#define  SIZE  4 * 1024 * 1024
#include <stdlib.h>

char  *storage;

void  main( void)
{
   storage = ( char * ) malloc( SIZE );

   if ( storage == NULL )
   {
      printf("Allocation failed\n");
   }
   else
   {
      printf("%d Bytes of memory allocated\n", SIZE);
   }

/*
   storage[x] = ...
*/

--
Mark Roberts

Some of the statements you have made here are not necessarily true - for
a start, protected mode != 32-bit. 32bit mode and PM are two different
entities entirely, although you must be using PM to use 32bit. Protected Mode
works (occasionally) on 286 machines - which cannot cope with 32 bit stuff.

Also protected mode is not the same thing as a flat memory model - in fact it
is very different from a flat memory model, it is a PROTECTED memory model,
with multiple segments of variable length.

It may be used to implement a flat memory model, but it by no means
necessarily is, and I would say that using it as such removes some of the
advantages that 80x86 processors have (even though thousands of programmers
would disagree with me - I like having near and far pointers, etc...)

--

   Flames should be redirected to /dev/null - I don't know what
   I'm saying myself so don't expect it to make sense all the time!         */

[...]
: It may be used to implement a flat memory model, but it by no means
: necessarily is, and I would say that using it as such removes some of the
: advantages that 80x86 processors have (even though thousands of programmers
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?????????????? ;-)
: would disagree with me - I like having near and far pointers, etc...)

: --

:    
:    Flames should be redirected to /dev/null - I don't know what
:    I'm saying my selfso don't expect it to make sense all the time!         */
MGM

Well, as for me, I can't stand the segmented addressing.  I am an embedded systems programmer just recently moving into IBM PC land.  And let me tell you, I long for my nice 32 bit pointers back that I can treat as 32 bit numbers or pointers with ease.  I really think that DOS has hamstrung the 386, 486, etc.  Here's a nice PC with 32 bit registers but hey, don't even think about using them.  Here's 16 meg of memory, but really you only got 640K.  (I'm having enought problems keeping the Intel Little Endia
n format straight from my well-known Motorola Big Endian format, much less trying to deal with DOS stupidity.)

These two factors have had me pulling my hair out for some time now.  I'm forced to program 16 bit applications for DOS at work currently.  But I sure won't do it on my next home PC (which will probably run Linux or OS2 or god forbid be a PowerPC :-)).  I really think it's time to let DOS die, it's just been hacked once to many times.  (Sadly, I don't think Windows 95 is going to cut it either).

Not to start a flame war, but does anyone really like DOS?  Does anyone think it  is a good programming/application environment?   I really think the only reason it is still around is the large user base already in place.

Any apoligies for mistakes.  I'm pretty much a DOS newbie too.

Eric

[stuff deleted]

)Well, as for me, I can't stand the segmented addressing.  I am an
embedded systems programmer just recently moving into IBM PC land.  And
let me tell you, I long for my nice 32 bit pointers back that I can
treat as 32 bit numbers or pointers with ease.  

        You are mistaking 32 bit address space for unsegmented memory
        architecture. I also do embedded programming. Some of it is on
        680x0 processors, and the first thing we did was add (on the
        68020) a MMU or program the on-board (68030) MMU to GET
        segmented address spaces. The problem with the 8086 architecture
        is not that it is segmented, but rather that the segments are
        -small-.

)I really think that DOS has hamstrung the 386, 486, etc.  Here's a
nice PC with 32 bit registers but hey, don't even think about using
them.  Here's 16 meg of memory, but really you only got 640K.  (I'm
having enought problems keeping the Intel Little Endian format
straight from my well-known Motorola Big Endian format, much less
trying to deal with DOS stupidity.)

        Little Endian, Big Endian, Big Deal. Each has advantages and
        disadvantages. DOS putting a 640K limit is much more a problem.

)These two factors have had me pulling my hair out for some time now.
I'm forced to program 16 bit applications for DOS at work currently.
But I sure won't do it on my next home PC (which will probably run
Linux or OS2 or god forbid be a PowerPC :-)).

        The biggest problem with Linux is it looks like UNIX - which I
        really don't like. I don't need time-slicing on my machine at
        home, and all the programs I need will fit into 640K, so my PC
        fills all my needs as it is.

)I really think it's time to let DOS die, it's just been hacked once to
many times.  (Sadly, I don't think Windows 95 is going to cut it
either). Not to start a flame war, but does anyone really like DOS?

        I surely prefer it to UNIX and its clones. The commands
        generally have meaning and comprise full words or close to it.
        LS to get a directory listing?

)Does anyone think it is a good programming/application environment?  
I really think the only reason it is still around is the large user
base already in place.

        The best reason in the world for any OS to exist is that there
        is a large application pool available. Come on, when was the
        last time you actually did productive works with the OS itself?
        Isn't it the -application- programs which actually do any real
        work?

        And DOS is superior for applications which require lots of raw
        horsepower, because it has -low- overhead. That's why it does
        well in high speed serial I/O applications. Which Linux, OS/2,
        and Windows are noted for doing poorly in.

)Any apoligies for mistakes.  I'm pretty much a DOS newbie too.
)Eric

        Please format your future messages to fit on my screen.

        Mike
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}

Apologies in advance for this off-topic post in comp.lang.c.  Stop reading
now if you wish.

You could always create a shell alias, or a shell script, to use "dir"
instead of "ls".  Unix gives you that sort of flexibility.  With a modern
shell, you can use the alias which means you don't have to read a
separate file.  DOS's shell (COMMAND.COM), and the original Unix Bourne
shell, only give you the script/batch file option.

This is the part to which I couldn't resist responding.  The last time
I did productive work with a bare OS was when I booted Linux at home,
wrote a C program with a text editor, compiled it, and debugged it.  All
the tools used to do this are part of the bare OS.

Can you compile a C program with MS-DOS by itself?  DOS supplies the
editor (even a choice of two now!), but not the compiler, linker or
de{*filter*}.  (To be fair, many commercial Unix vendors are also no longer
supplying these tools, if they ever did.  They should hang their heads
in shame!)
--
# Greg Wooledge                     /..\

)Apologies in advance for this off-topic post in comp.lang.c.  Stop reading
)now if you wish.
)
)
)>   I surely prefer it to UNIX and its clones. The commands
)>   generally have meaning and comprise full words or close to it.
)>   LS to get a directory listing?
)
)You could always create a shell alias, or a shell script, to use "dir"
)instead of "ls".  Unix gives you that sort of flexibility.  With a modern

        UGH. NEVER would I try to make one OS look like another this
        way.

)>   Come on, when was the
)>   last time you actually did productive works with the OS itself?
)>   Isn't it the -application- programs which actually do any real
)>   work?
)
)This is the part to which I couldn't resist responding.  The last time
)I did productive work with a bare OS was when I booted Linux at home,
)wrote a C program with a text editor, compiled it, and debugged it.  All
)the tools used to do this are part of the bare OS.

        The compiler is =not= part of the OS. The OS is the kernel and
        linked device drivers. Not even the shell is (technically) part
        of the OS, but I'll give you that one. The fact that LINUX
        comes -bundled- with some applications (like compilers and
        editors) is irrelevant.

)Can you compile a C program with MS-DOS by itself?

        No. And you can't compile a C program with LINUX itself,
        either.

)DOS supplies the
)editor (even a choice of two now!), but not the compiler, linker or
)de{*filter*}.  (To be fair, many commercial Unix vendors are also no longer
)supplying these tools, if they ever did.  They should hang their heads
)in shame!)

        A de{*filter*} comes bundled with DOS. So does a BASIC (shudder)
        interpreter. So if you want to claim the C compiler as part of
        the LINUX OS (I would not consider it so) then you must also
        consider the BASIC interpreter bundled with DOS to be on a par
        with it. And the debugging provided by the BASIC interpreter is
        superior to that supplied with most (perhaps all?) C compilers
        for UNIX look-alikes.

        Your arguments hold no attraction for me. I can't speak for
        others.

        Mike

----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}

If we use the POSIX specification as an example of an operating system
definition, then your statement is incorrect.

POSIX.1 specifies system calls which the kernel must support -- for example,
        open, creat, read, fork
POSIX.2 specifies various utilities which are part of the OS -- for example,
        sh, grep, sed, pr

I don't know the entire POSIX spec, so I'll stop there.  But the OS is
more than just the kernel and linked device drivers.  It is a set of
features, some of which happen to be a shell, an editor, etc.

I'm not certain whether POSIX demands a compiler.  However, since Linux
comes with a compiler (as you stated), I think it's fair to say that
the gcc compiler is part of the Linux operating system.  A purist may
disagree, but it runs just fine for me. :-)
--
# Greg Wooledge                     /..\