Good grief. Have you even had a look at the sources? Most of it iis stuff that was written when people were still carrying their wives over their shoulders and they used to club mammoths for a meal. You don't need a C20 compiler to build most of the GNU tools. FreeDOS is a free implementation of a 40 year old OS. Unless you want to abandon that legacy altogether, you shouldn't require a contemporary compiler to build it. And that's not even mentioning that gcc itself is older than the dinosaurs itself.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 at 21:49, Kirn Gill II via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > 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 > VoIP: +1 813-704-0420 > 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 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
