> Most GNU tools, especially those that you would use outside of a gcc dev enironment, don't require gcc.
Immediate message before yours has: > Or they at least assume a more recent-standard Unix-like compiler. So that was addressed before you got there. > I can say that with some confidence, because I compiled them using non-gcc compilers under AIX and HP-UX in the past, and that past goes back as far as 1998 Which again, as addressed in the immediately previous message. "Unix-like"; your comment about using the system compiler there doesn't support your argument (in fact, to the contrary!) because, well, those OSes are Unixen. Speaking of OpenWatcom, where are they on C20 support? Hell, does OpenWatcom even support a complete version of the C standard newer than 35 years old? Of course I'm now expecting someone to foolishly reply to me with the ol' "hurr durr it's DOS we don't need anything beyond ANSI C89/ISO C90!" spiel. Yawn. Back to Bruce: > What's with the GCC/DJGPP? See my comment about OpenWatcom above. > Essential tools like flex, bison, make, patch are all easily portable to OWC Upload a real-time YouTube video, less than 10 minutes, showing it done with the *latest, currently released stable version* of any of these tools, as of 14 December 2024. If it's so "easily" done, it shouldn't take more than 600 seconds, start-to-finish. With a GNU toolchain in a Unix-resembling environment, it's ./configure --target=... && make; most modern machines can fully run the build in 20 seconds or less. I'm being generous and giving you thirty times as much time. Come on, nut up or shut up. > Why would someone even get the idea to create a *new* one (including investing the work) ? Because someone has the mentality of a thirteen-year old teenager: The old one is bad because it is old and a new one would be much better because it's newer, and also you don't have the fluff of legacy code involved because legacy means bad. And speaking of localization: > Does anyone know why the strings were put into separate files in the first place? Because that's how the vast majority of projects are organized; The text strings for each supported language live in their own separate translation files. -- Kirn Gill II Mobile: +1 813-300-2330 <+18133002330> VoIP: +1 813-704-0420 <+18137040420> Email: segin2...@gmail.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kirn-gill/32/49a/9a6 On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 9:27 AM Danilo Pecher via Freedos-devel < freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > I don't think it is a good idea to introduce a second toolchain. Most > GNU tools, especially those that you would use outside of a gcc dev > enironment, don't require gcc. I can say that with some confidence, > because I compiled them using non-gcc compilers under AIX and HP-UX in > the past, and that past goes back as far as 1998. Ideally, it should > be possible to build all packages coming with C-sources using the same > toolchain, else we'll all end up with HDDs full of compilers. > > Essential tools like flex, bison, make, patch are all easily portable > to OWC, in fact you'll probably run into more hassle with text > formatting issues than any compiler dependencies. The only package > where I would see potential problems would be binutils, but those are > not really needed unless you're building with gcc in the first place. > > cheers, Danilo > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 at 12:19, Jim Hall via Freedos-devel > <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > > Several of the GNU tools assume you're compiling with GCC. Or they at > least assume a more recent-standard Unix-like compiler. > > > > In these cases, trying to port a GNU utility to FreeDOS using OpenWatcom > can be a lot harder than just compiling it with a GCC compiler like IA-16 > GCC. (Djgpp is great too, but requires the target system is a 386 or > better, IA-16 GCC requires a 386 to compile but the exe can run on lower > systems). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 5:07 AM Danilo Pecher via Freedos-devel < > freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> > >> I have to admit, I'm rather confused about the gcc IA-16 thing too. > >> Jim seems to like it a lot, but Watcom code runs on all processors > >> too, provided you use the proper options to have it compile for the > >> lowest common demoninator, which would be the 8086. > >> > >> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 at 11:04, Bruce Axtens via Freedos-devel > >> <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > Assuming I'm an experienced programmer (have been since 1983), > >> > > >> > * Port FreeDOS utilities to OpenWatcom C (our preferred C compiler) > and > >> > NASM (our preferred assembler). > >> > > >> > Specifically? > >> > > >> > * Apply some much-needed patches to the Freemacs editor > >> > > >> > Where's the list of fixes? > >> > > >> > * Write some cool edit modes for Freemacs. > >> > > >> > Hmm ... that's a TRAC dialect. I've been meaning to learn TRAC > and > >> > even add it to the Exercism stable. Maybe I should add MINT instead. > Can > >> > MINT be used stand-alone or only inside Freemacs? > >> > > >> > * Port GNU utilities to FreeDOS, such as using IA-16 GCC (IA-16 GCC > >> > requires a '386 or better to compile, but programs compiled with IA-16 > >> > GCC run on all CPUs) or DJGPP (might be the only option for some > larger > >> > programs). > >> > > >> > Hang on, a moment ago you were asking for FreeDOS utilities to be > >> > ported to OpenWatcom C. What's with the GCC/DJGPP? > >> > > >> > * Create a new alternative shell, similar to COMMAND.COM but with > >> > expanded BAT programming. > >> > > >> > So like Windows's CMD.EXE with FOR /L and FOR /D and FOR /F etc? > >> > > >> > * Volunteer to become the maintainer for a program that doesn't have > an > >> > active developer. > >> > > >> > Hmm ... sound masochistic. That'd be quite a few programs, no? > >> > > >> > > >> > -Bruce. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Freedos-devel mailing list > >> > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Freedos-devel mailing list > >> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Freedos-devel mailing list > > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel >
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
