From: "Yuri Prokushev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 23:55:05 -0400 (EDT)
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: [Sibyl] first alpha of the new bsedos/doscall
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I (and the other FPC core team members) don't. DosCalls and PMWin
> >form parts of the OS/2 API. Libc doesn't. Some libc is distributed on
> > almost all platforms nowadays, but that doesn't change anything on
> >the fact it still isn't a system library. You can have several libc
> >versions running on top of one system (in the case of OS/2 there's
> >EMX, VACPP, Watcom, Borland, ...).
> Yes, I can. But such libcs not part of os. In our case libc is a part
> of standard distribution and I don't see any logical problems (instead
> of system independed implementation of routines) with usage of such
> libs
That's exactly the same as with, say, Linux.
> >files distributed together with OS/2. In addition to what I wrote
> >above, these files aren't available on OS/2 Warp 3.0 at all as you
> >noted yourself.
> Well. Warp 3 not so widely used. And bacause I added condition instead
> of direct implementation of libc calls.
OK, but the distributed (precompiled) version has to be compatible
with Warp 3. Given the fact that most users don't recompile RTL,
you'd end up on working on something hardly ever used. But you'd
still have to test it, fix it, etc.
> >BTW, how much code would you really save if using
> >these?
> At least strings operations (val/str/trim etc), random/randomize,
> threads control, file operations, regexps, lot of mathematic
> functions, date/time, stream io, memoru operations and few other. This
> is at least strings/sysutils/math units. It is hard to predict saved
> space. May be not so much.
You'd still have to write some wrappers around them to make any use
of them in RTL, because most RTL functions don't correspond directly
to libc functions. The result is a slower program.
> >Do you think it's really worth the trouble with creating and
> >maintaining two versions of RTL functions?
> I think, no. And this is interesting for me. Also allows easely port C
> programs.
The only thing you'd need for easier porting of C programs is an
interface unit for libc. Such a thing would be needed for e.g. Kylix
compatibility anyway, but that's a different story. Using libc
function in our own RTL doesn't make porting from C any easier, IMHO.
Tomas
-----------
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe sibyl
end
