> I'm thinking it would be a good idea to standardize on one C/C++ compiler for
> the
> project. I'm looking at the Open Watcom compiler and would like your opinion
OK, see below ...
> I'd like to see gcc for all 32- and 64-bit development
What's the design goal ???
> > it really needs to
> >
> Now, I will have to disclose that I have not tried jwasm. There's no
> reason
> behind that except for laziness. Having learned nasm and finding it met
> my
> needs, I just didn't try jwasm because I didn't want to learn it. So, I
> cannot compare nasm to it.
I can't really compare NASM t
Good point.
Pat
Project Coordinator
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Travis Siegel wrote:
> Regardless of what is finally settled on for use, it really needs to
> be something that works from the freedos environment itself. It would
> be kind of silly to tell folks that they need a windows ma
Regardless of what is finally settled on for use, it really needs to
be something that works from the freedos environment itself. It would
be kind of silly to tell folks that they need a windows machine just
to recompile some code they're currently already using.
If that's open watcom, great
Well, I wasn't going to consider the assembler yet because I didn't want to
stir things up too much, but now that you ask ...
I have a lot of experience with a lot of assemblers on a lot of machines. I
was never too fond of masm, although I did write a lot of code using it. I
preferred (note pas
> I'm thinking it would be a good idea to standardize on one C/C++ compiler
> for the project. [...]
I would be interested in your opinions about standardizing one or several
assemblers for the project. I think that the kernel and FreeCOM assembler
source files currently use NASM, a 2-clause B
At 05:33 AM 8/21/2010, Walt Nagel wrote:
>Another possibility worth considering is MinGW/GCC. As long as GCC
>is "under development," by extension, MinGW will be, as well. The
>question here would be, do you want to use Windows, Linux or DOS as
>the development platform -- Windows allows a smoo
om:* Pat Villani
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:44 AM
> *Subject:* [Freedos-devel] Standardized development tools
>
> Folks,
>
> I'm thinking it would be a good idea to standardize on one C/C++ compiler
> for the
Thanks Jeremy. I've been playing with the kernel for the last few days and
building it with OW v1.9. All looks quite good and the kernel seems to
behave properly.
I definitely agree that source code should be written to be as portable as
possible, and we can achieve that by coding to a standard
n Watcom or
> GCC.
>
> Walt
>
>
> --- On *Sat, 8/21/10, Pat Villani * wrote:
>
>
> From: Pat Villani
> Subject: [Freedos-devel] Standardized development tools
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Saturday, August 21, 2010, 12:44 AM
>
>
> Fol
: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:44 AM
Subject: [Freedos-devel] Standardized development tools
Folks,
I'm thinking it would be a good idea to standardize on one C/C++ compiler for
the project. I'm looking at the Open Watcom compiler and
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Pat Villani wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm thinking it would be a good idea to standardize on one C/C++ compiler
> for the project. I'm looking at the Open Watcom compiler and would like
> your opinion. Reason for this suggestion is that it is the only real mode
> comp
ani wrote:
From: Pat Villani
Subject: [Freedos-devel] Standardized development tools
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, August 21, 2010, 12:44 AM
Folks,
I'm thinking it would be a good idea to standardize on one C/C++ compiler for
the project. I'm looking at the
Folks,
I'm thinking it would be a good idea to standardize on one C/C++ compiler
for the project. I'm looking at the Open Watcom compiler and would like
your opinion. Reason for this suggestion is that it is the only real mode
compiler still under development and supported.
This doesn't mean th
14 matches
Mail list logo
