On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 9:34 AM Danilo Pecher via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > As I wrote in my reply to Jim's email, I don't think introducing > additional toolchains makes any sense. In fact it would be a good idea > to have all 'official' packages that are based on C compile with OWC. > I don't know if that has changed, but I remember MKEYB at some point > required Turbo-C to compile. DOS isn't usually run in huge-arse > environments with terra bytes of HDD space, so it might be a good idea > to limit the number of toolchains we need to build packages. If > nothing else, it also reduces the number of testing required.
Our standard is that programs that make up the "Base" package group (the programs that replicate original DOS .. like the kernel, FreeCOM, and so on) should be written in C or assembly. Our standard C compiler is OpenWatcom C, and our standard assembler is NASM. That hasn't changed. The other discussion that you referred to was about people porting Unix programs to FreeDOS using a version of GCC, because a few GNU programs expect to be compiled with GCC. And that's a different use case. In my reply, I wrote: >> Yes, the OpenWatcom C compiler is the standard C compiler for FreeDOS. >> And we prefer that all C programs get compiled under OpenWatcom C. >> >> And I agree with you that "Most GNU tools .. don't require gcc." But a >> few of them do. As I said in my email, "Several of the GNU tools >> assume you're compiling with GCC." >> >> And also as I said in my email: IN THESE CASES, you can sometimes get >> past this by compiling with a GCC compiler, like IA-16 GCC. >> >> >> So it's not really introducing "a second toolchain" but providing an >> alternate toolchain for those who need it. _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
