On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Da Silva, Joe wrote:
> Two things "come to mind" :
>
> 1. How much extra memory do you think will be required?
Not much - but even 10 KB can help some people, because Arachne already
uses all DOS memory on most systems...
> 2. Once-upon-a-time, the Watcom people used to claim their
> C compiler produced the most compact executable code. I
> don't know if this was or remained true (since compilers are
> always changing). I also don't know how easy it is to "port"
> code from one C compiler to another. However, Watcom C
> is being converted to open-source, so it should be possible
> to obtain a free Watcom C compiler in the near future ( see
> http://www.openwatcom.org/status.html ) - meanwhile,
> perhaps someone here may know, and can comment on,
> the efficiencies of different compilers. Toni Lopez (epppd),
> for instance, says Borland's V3.1 compiler produces more
> compact code than their latter C compilers ...
I am using V3.1.... I think Watcom is 32bit compiler, but maybe it has
option to compile to 16bits too... it would be worth trying. Most of all,
I would need better support for overlays - I want to be able to specify
how much memory should be allocated for overlays, and what is priority of
overalid modules - some modules has low priority and can be swapped out as
soon as necessary, some modules should be "almost static"....
--
http://arachne.cz/
(Arachne WWW browser for DOS+Linux / Webhosting / MP3streaming)
