Hi,
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Eric Auer <e.a...@jpberlin.de> wrote:
>
>> How about a FreeDOS Developer Studio?
I don't want to be pessimistic or discourage anyone, but this sounds difficult.
> I think SETEDIT comes with some programmer support and
> there is some DJGPP IDE (RHIDE?) and maybe others.
Neither has been maintained (for DOS/DJGPP, at least) in a decade.
Well, RHIDE is more of a sore spot because it only works with ancient
GCCs (3.3.6 or such), either being built itself or debugging (RHGDB,
GDB 6.3?? COFF debug info only, which doesn't work well with newer GCC
4.5+).
I'm not saying RHIDE isn't good. Most people used to love it. But it's
probably not a great idea (anymore) unless you just can't live without
it. (IIRC, DJGPP GNU Emacs is still built with GCC 3.4.4 due to
reliance on COFF debug info for unexec.)
Anyways, IIRC, latest semi-official build (1.5c) is here ("No more are
are planed in near future."):
http://ap1.pp.fi/djgpp/rhide/
BTW, there are newer DJGPP GDB ports, but I'm not sure how (fully)
well they work. There is still some commotion about them needing some
fixes. Some also had "--tui" built-in, dunno, never heavily used it in
recent years. Latest DJGPP GDB port is 7.7.1.
> While I myself do not use free open source IDE for DOS, but do
> remember that the Turbo C / Turbo Pascal IDE was not bad,
> I suggest that there could be a discussion in this thread
> about experiences that people have with existing DOS IDE,
> in particular the free open source ones :-)
Some DOS editors can easily catch compiler error messages. Of course
GNU Emacs (24.5) works with DJGPP. But you could also use (much
smaller) JED, which (IIRC) supported several more error formats (even
Watcom or Borland). Obviously others might work with DJGPP as well
(e.g. FED, even TDE has very limited support, VILE might barely work
too, not sure about VIM but presumably yes).
I don't really use IDEs. Some people love them. Of course, FreePascal
builds its own TUI IDE in itself (with built-in compiler), so that IDE
is always included. (Usually also has GDB built-in as well.)
> Regarding the OTHER aspect of your idea - collecting new
> and classic tools which are nice for developers - I agree
> that it is good to have all things needed to compile all
> standard parts of the FreeDOS distro, but for some, there
> will be license issues in providing downloads. You should
> just point people to suitable official websites for such
> things as the "free museum" Borland compiler versions.
In other words ... forget "Borland" entirely. IIRC, Embarcadero still
don't allow redistribution of their ancient DOS compilers. (You could
email and plead nicely, but don't get your hopes up. And I don't
honestly know if Jim Hall would want to mirror such things on iBiblio
anymore.)
It would be better to convert everything like that to OpenWatcom, but
lots of stuff has been unmaintained for years, so it's unlikely to
happen. (Some of it isn't really portable and uses old Borland-isms.)
> I do not know what the PC Game Programmer's Encyclopedia
> license is, but remember that various similar projects
> exist, so you could include one which is good and does
> have a free license. And of course include RBIL - Ralf
> Brown's Interrupt List :-)
ftp://ftp.lanet.lv/pub/programming/mirror-x2ftp/gpe/00index.html
>> It would combine all of the recommended build tools to build the
>> operating from the source.
This is a lot harder than it sounds. :-/
>> With that being said (theoretically), would it be a good idea?
>>
>> OpenWatcom, NASM, FreePascal, what else?
These are already available in FDNPKG format, BTW.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/devel/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
