Hi, AFAIK no one on this project is interested in building a C compiler from scratch for the purposes of developing FreeDOS. DJGPP can’t reliably generate code for all the DOS modes which rules it out, MSC and the Borland compilers. Pacific C is free but we only have access to the binary build and I doubt we can make changes to the distribution (maybe we can).
The only 2 compilers that could possibly be customized would be Bruce’s C compiler which I hear is missing some things and OpenWatcom. The OW modification with the name change, in my mind was to identify a heavily customized build of OW that while it maintains compatibility with the original source, things that we don’t need for FreeDOS development can be stripped out (to make a smaller package) and other customizations for the things we actually do use. Think of it like Ubuntu. What is Ubuntu if you really think about it? Debian customized with the things (mostly) that you have to optionally include from unstable and custom repositories. If the name is a sticking point, we can leave it as OW, but it should be clear that the OS/2, Win32 support, Win64 support (in 2.0), Linux (2.0), and perhaps the Netware things would be removed. It would contain everything else PLUS all the common libraries needed to build FreeDOS applications and tools. I guess it was/is a stupid idea anyway so there’s no real need to discuss it further. -Tony > On Jan 17, 2018, at 12:07 PM, Tom Ehlert <t...@drivesnapshot.de> wrote: > > > >> The OpenWatcom toolchain is the reference compiler for >> FreeDOS. > when I started with FreeDOS, MSC 6.x was the recommended compiler to > use for FreeDOS. later this became TurboC (because it was free), then > Watcom C (because it's free and open), and in not so far future people > will be asking for GCC to be the reference compiler (because its even > more free). naming them all 'freedos C++' is not such a good idea. > > > >> I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure I like the optics of >> re-branding another project's work as "FreeDOS." That will seem like >> we're trying to grab someone else's stuff and claim it as our own - >> which we're not. > > +1 > > Tom > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
