On Jan 27, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > But I would seriously discourage the use of gcc, as that is not going to > help to produce anything useful for DOS, as it by and large is a *ix > based and targeting compiler, which has only be shoehorned rather > crudely to produce code for DOS...
Ok, good to know. I did use gcc for a (very) short time under dos, and while it was a bit problematic to setup (paths had to be right, environment variables had to be set) it did the job, but I wasn't trying to do anything fancy with it, so don't know how well it handles complicated stuff, and if it's as bad as indicated, then I guess I'll stop recommending it. :-). Interestingly enough, I've seen loads of free C compilers, but very few with source, though I did purchase one that was shareware many years ago (the purchase gave you the right to obtain the source, and modify the compiler if desired), but I never did anything with it. I did write an assembler though, just to prove to myself it couldn't be done in the time frame alloted, only that one backfired, and it was actually a workable assembler in just under a week. Nothing approaching commercial quality you understand, but it worked. I did that, because I'd read a book claiming that a beginner assembly programmer could produce a working compiler in a week. I didn't believe it, so set out to prove the author wrong. And, as mentioned, it did indeed work as the author stated, which really surprised me. But, the point of the sideline here is just to point out that dos compilers aren't all that difficult to write, so if necessary, adapting gcc or some other compiler and making it part of the freedos project could be done. Not likely to be done mind you, but it could is all I'm saying. Regardless of what folks settle on, as the final guidelines, folks must remember they are (mostly) only guidelines, and I'm sure exceptions can and will be made given sufficient reasons to do so. I agree whole heartedly that freedos should contain complete source for it's programs (just like some linux distros do), but I'm also of the opinion that free tools are preferable to commercial ones, (something the majority of folks seem to agree with), but I'm also of the opinion that opensource should be used where possible (an opinion not shared by most it seems) and that's ok, it's only an opinion, and I have no authority over the project in any way, so it remains my opinions only. :) I think folks really should use what works for them, but if two things work equally well, and one of them is opensource, then by all means, opt for the opensource option. That's my take on it, and I'll shut up now, since I think this topic has drifted somewhat from the original intent, and I'm really not out to cause any trouble. I'd love to see the freedos project thrive, and even the kernel evolve, so I'm always willing to lend a hand if desired. I can help with the code reviews, as we did them where I worked several years ago, since we were a cmm level 5 group, and code requirements were pretty strict. I know nothing like that is necessary here, only stating for the record I have experience, and am willing to assist if/when wanted/needed. And, who knows, if I can think of something useful, perhaps I can contribute to the freedos library too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
