On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Bart Oldeman wrote:
> virtual machine: in a winnt dos box you type:
> vdmserv
> (hello.exe needs to be in the current directory)
Ahh, this one does the trick!! _Sometimes_ vdmserv eats up all CPU time?
Well, anyway, it works. If you don't use the vdmserv, "wdw" does not seem
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> b) How can I debug those programs from within WinNT? Both the tools in
> BINNT and BINW complain about invalid debugging information. I pass the
> "-d3" option to WCC.EXE and WLINK.EXE gets "DEBUG WATCOM ALL". The
> executable has lots of stuff append
Hi,
comments embedded.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Freedos-devel] Q: Watcom & debugging
>
>
>
Hello,
I'm trying to setup a functional OpenWatcom environment on WinXP (using
BINNT tools) building real-mode DOS programs. Till now it builds objects
and executables fine. I have these problems:
a) When I try to use a "normal" librarian (aka LIB.EXE), the Watvom linker
does accept the library,
Hi!
6-Фев-2004 13:43 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steffen Kaiser) wrote to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> :( Are they big in Watcom? May be, someone resends them for me?
SK> I re-assembled the zip and extracted some files:
SK> http://www2.inf.fh-bonn-rhein-sieg.de/~skaise2a/ska/ow/ow-clibx.zip
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> Unfortunately, I miss RTL sources to analyze such dependencies myself.
> :( Are they big in Watcom? May be, someone resends them for me?
Hello Arkady,
I re-assembled the zip and extracted some files:
About 770KB
http://www2.inf.fh-bonn-rhein-s
Hi!
4-Фев-2004 10:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
LG> My Watcom CFLAGS (small model) with which I reach the smallest .EXE file
LG> size are:
LG> CFLAGS = -wx -zpw -zq -obklrs -ei -s -5 -i$(%WATCOM)\h (you can drop -5 of
LG> course ;-)
With -ei most proba
Hi!
4-Фев-2004 10:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> BO> Anyway, -os -s or -oas -s or -oals -s will generally be smaller.
>> Looks like best (default) should be -obhklrs and sometime with
>> -oami[+]-s? Anyway, ATTRIB.OBJ for -obhklrs-oami+-s (almost) identica
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Arkady V.Belousov
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Freedos-devel] Q: watcom
>
[...]
> RM> If you pass option /mt (
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Bart Oldeman wrote:
>
> > Replacements for malloc() and free() will help; don't forget to define
> > _nmalloc as a malloc caller.
>
> Can you hook into Watcom's heap management? E.g. trace malloc() calls,
> redo malloc(), if it failed
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Bart Oldeman wrote:
> Replacements for malloc() and free() will help; don't forget to define
> _nmalloc as a malloc caller.
Can you hook into Watcom's heap management? E.g. trace malloc() calls,
redo malloc(), if it failed (after some stuff has been deallocated)? Can I
have im
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> BO> Anyway, -os -s or -oas -s or -oals -s will generally be smaller.
>
> Looks like best (default) should be -obhklrs and sometime with
> -oami[+]-s? Anyway, ATTRIB.OBJ for -obhklrs-oami+-s (almost) identical to
> result with -oxshki+-s.
hmm, I
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:20:41 +0300 (MSK), Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
I don't know how organized the Watcom RTL sources,
but, probably, there are more common files. In this case, to make
executables smaller, there remains only one way: instead .obj compiler
should generate .lib files, where each func
Hi!
3-Фев-2004 19:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> - with BCC defaults for options may be written in turboc.cfg. How to reduce
>> command line in Watcom? Where (in which .ihp file) this explained (if this
BO> environment variables or @file
BTW, Watcom doe
Hi!
3-Фев-2004 11:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Mariottini)
wrote to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> RM> If you pass option /mt (or something like that) to the compiler, it will
>> RM> automatically define __TINY__ (or some other similar variable).
>> Unlike BCC (which is one WCL+WCC+WPP in one), WCC/WPP
They have an own newsgroup server (news.openwatcom.org) with several
groups to which you may subscribe. Developers may probably be reading them.
I obtained the info from openwatcom.org, so you would find more
information on their site (it's long ago since I subscribed, read and
posted there).
A
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> - with BCC defaults for options may be written in turboc.cfg. How to reduce
> command line in Watcom? Where (in which .ihp file) this explained (if this
> possible at all)?
environment variables or @file
cguide.ihp has this information, look for
Hi!
3-Фев-2004 09:25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Mariottini)
wrote to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> BTW, lguide.ihp says that I may increment stack size by OPTION STACK,
>> but this option affects only .EXE format header. .COM files with and w/o
>> this option are equal. I found in cstart_t.obj men
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:46:49 +0300 (MSK), Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
- with BC stack size may be defined (in source!) by next definition:
extern unsigned _Cdecl _stklen = ...;
How do this in Watcom? Which default stack size in Watcom (and where this
explained)?
See the Linker Guide, "The
Hi,
comments embedded.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Arkady V.Belousov
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Q: watcom
>
> 3-Фев-2004 07:46
Hi!
3-Фев-2004 10:24 _ark (Arkady V.Belousov) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>> - what the difference between * and *386 (for example, WCC and WCC386)?
SN>> The 386 version builds 32-bit code.
BTW, does anyone already communicate with OW development team? I mean,
there already is bugs, which
Hi!
3-Фев-2004 00:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Nickolas) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> - what the difference between * and *386 (for example, WCC and WCC386)?
SN> The 386 version builds 32-bit code.
In size they are almost equal (for example, WCC=814324, WCC386=822572).
So, because I compil
Hi!
3-Фев-2004 07:46 Arkady V.Belousov wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
AVB> - with BC stack size may be defined (in source!) by next definition:
AVB> extern unsigned _Cdecl _stklen = ...;
AVB> How do this in Watcom? Which default stack size in Watcom (and where this
AVB> explained)?
At Tue, 3 Feb 2004 7:46am +0300, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> - what the difference between * and *386 (for example, WCC and WCC386)?
The 386 version builds 32-bit code.
> - how to compile .COM files? With command line
> wlink form dos com file attrib.obj
> wlink gives some erro
Hi!
- what the difference between * and *386 (for example, WCC and WCC386)?
- with BCC defaults for options may be written in turboc.cfg. How to reduce
command line in Watcom? Where (in which .ihp file) this explained (if this
possible at all)?
- with BC stack size may be defined (in source!
25 matches
Mail list logo
