Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
Hi,
I did a build of OW 2.0 (it was rebranded) but nothing else was changed at this
point. It turns out the best way to build it was on Windows. I tried Linux and
failed and the path was too deep for MS-DOS to be used for building.
> On Jan 18, 2018, at 1:18 AM, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Antony Gordon wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK no one on this project is interested in building a C compiler from
>> scratch for
>> the purposes of developing FreeDOS.
>
> Nobody's directly working on such, AFAIK, unless you count SmallerC
> (which is not DOS nor FreeDOS exclusive but does partially support
> it).
>
>> DJGPP can’t reliably generate code for all the DOS modes which rules it out,
>> MSC and the Borland compilers.
>
> FreePascal's i8086-msdos can target all models, but that's TP and
> Delphi, not ISO C nor POSIX.
>
>> The only 2 compilers that could possibly be customized would be Bruce’s C
>> compiler
>> which I hear is missing some things and OpenWatcom.
>
> DeSmet C or SmallerC both work, but they don't support all models. And
> the latter is always 386+ (which isn't that big a deal at this late
> date).
>
> Actually, I think SmallerC is quite good, and I still want to make an
> official package one of these days.
>
>> I guess it was/is a stupid idea anyway so there’s no real need to discuss it
>> further.
>
> The idea to have a slim or DOS-only build isn't stupid. But I guess
> most people don't have the motivation. I find it vaguely interesting,
> but even I would be overwhelmed trying to rebuild OpenWatcom. I still
> haven't tried the latest 2.0-pre builds:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/openwatcom/files/open-watcom-2.0-2017-11-01/
>
> ("open-watcom-2_0-c-dos.exe" is 107.7 MB, presumably .ZIP sfx compressed
> again.)
>
> IIRC, the full OW 1.9 DOS install (only for DOS targets) was "only"
> like 45 MB or so.
>
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Antony Gordon wrote:
>
> AFAIK no one on this project is interested in building a C compiler from
> scratch for
> the purposes of developing FreeDOS.
Nobody's directly working on such, AFAIK, unless you count SmallerC
(which is not DOS nor FreeDOS exclusive but does partially support
it).
> DJGPP can’t reliably generate code for all the DOS modes which rules it out,
> MSC and the Borland compilers.
FreePascal's i8086-msdos can target all models, but that's TP and
Delphi, not ISO C nor POSIX.
> The only 2 compilers that could possibly be customized would be Bruce’s C
> compiler
> which I hear is missing some things and OpenWatcom.
DeSmet C or SmallerC both work, but they don't support all models. And
the latter is always 386+ (which isn't that big a deal at this late
date).
Actually, I think SmallerC is quite good, and I still want to make an
official package one of these days.
> I guess it was/is a stupid idea anyway so there’s no real need to discuss it
> further.
The idea to have a slim or DOS-only build isn't stupid. But I guess
most people don't have the motivation. I find it vaguely interesting,
but even I would be overwhelmed trying to rebuild OpenWatcom. I still
haven't tried the latest 2.0-pre builds:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/openwatcom/files/open-watcom-2.0-2017-11-01/
("open-watcom-2_0-c-dos.exe" is 107.7 MB, presumably .ZIP sfx compressed again.)
IIRC, the full OW 1.9 DOS install (only for DOS targets) was "only"
like 45 MB or so.
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
Hi, AFAIK no one on this project is interested in building a C compiler from scratch for the purposes of developing FreeDOS. DJGPP can’t reliably generate code for all the DOS modes which rules it out, MSC and the Borland compilers. Pacific C is free but we only have access to the binary build and I doubt we can make changes to the distribution (maybe we can). The only 2 compilers that could possibly be customized would be Bruce’s C compiler which I hear is missing some things and OpenWatcom. The OW modification with the name change, in my mind was to identify a heavily customized build of OW that while it maintains compatibility with the original source, things that we don’t need for FreeDOS development can be stripped out (to make a smaller package) and other customizations for the things we actually do use. Think of it like Ubuntu. What is Ubuntu if you really think about it? Debian customized with the things (mostly) that you have to optionally include from unstable and custom repositories. If the name is a sticking point, we can leave it as OW, but it should be clear that the OS/2, Win32 support, Win64 support (in 2.0), Linux (2.0), and perhaps the Netware things would be removed. It would contain everything else PLUS all the common libraries needed to build FreeDOS applications and tools. I guess it was/is a stupid idea anyway so there’s no real need to discuss it further. -Tony > On Jan 17, 2018, at 12:07 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > > > >> The OpenWatcom toolchain is the reference compiler for >> FreeDOS. > when I started with FreeDOS, MSC 6.x was the recommended compiler to > use for FreeDOS. later this became TurboC (because it was free), then > Watcom C (because it's free and open), and in not so far future people > will be asking for GCC to be the reference compiler (because its even > more free). naming them all 'freedos C++' is not such a good idea. > > > >> I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure I like the optics of >> re-branding another project's work as "FreeDOS." That will seem like >> we're trying to grab someone else's stuff and claim it as our own - >> which we're not. > > +1 > > Tom > > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
> The OpenWatcom toolchain is the reference compiler for > FreeDOS. when I started with FreeDOS, MSC 6.x was the recommended compiler to use for FreeDOS. later this became TurboC (because it was free), then Watcom C (because it's free and open), and in not so far future people will be asking for GCC to be the reference compiler (because its even more free). naming them all 'freedos C++' is not such a good idea. > I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure I like the optics of > re-branding another project's work as "FreeDOS." That will seem like > we're trying to grab someone else's stuff and claim it as our own - > which we're not. +1 Tom -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
I am sure Jiri will be interested in those DOS library enhancements: https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2 As for the fork, I see an additional problem, that will be outdated since it will not contain latest fixed by Jiri. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Remitente:Antony Gordon Destinatario: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers. Fecha:lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 5:47:52 Asunto: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain Archivos: --===-- Hi, I’m going to address all the emails at once instead of replying to multiple emails so it will be pretty easy to follow (I think). Jerome, it initially looks like that because I haven’t had the time to devote to fully building this idea out. Also, due to the amount of things involved in simply building OpenWatcom, i wanted to make sure it would compile and work before I did anything else major. Jim and Steve, some of the reasons I am wanted to build a custom compiler toolchain based on OpenWatcom (kind of like what Microsoft did with Lattice C in 1983) is The OpenWatcom toolchain is the reference compiler for FreeDOS. Since the source is freely available with a license as such (instead of some of the abandoned but freely available compilers) it can be specifically customized for FreeDOS Once completely built, all of the custom libraries that have been developed (or modified) for use with FreeDOS can be included with it, thereby making a customized toolchain. In the customized toolchain, all the non FreeDOS/DOS related stuff (Linux, Win32, Win64, and OS/2) would be removed. The OpenWatcom project MAY be interested in the custom libraries that we include specifically for FreeDOS development, and if so, I’d gladly send them over for inclusion, but I think the design goals of the OW project are different (at least for the C portion) which is making it compliant with the newer C/C++ standards and perhaps the Win32 and Win64 stuff. FreeDOS doesn’t have to be in the name, but I think having it there will signify while this is OpenWatcom, it will be a customized version tailored specifically for FreeDOS. -Tony On Jan 14, 2018, at 6:21 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Jim Hall wrote: Hi Tony I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure I like the optics of re-branding another project's work as "FreeDOS." That will seem like we're trying to grab someone else's stuff and claim it as our own - which we're not. QFT. Personal opinion: A "FreeDOS C" toolchain should really, IMO, if it should even exist, be a scratch one, not a rebadging of another toolchain. -uso. -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
Hi, I’m going to address all the emails at once instead of replying to multiple emails so it will be pretty easy to follow (I think). Jerome, it initially looks like that because I haven’t had the time to devote to fully building this idea out. Also, due to the amount of things involved in simply building OpenWatcom, i wanted to make sure it would compile and work before I did anything else major. Jim and Steve, some of the reasons I am wanted to build a custom compiler toolchain based on OpenWatcom (kind of like what Microsoft did with Lattice C in 1983) is The OpenWatcom toolchain is the reference compiler for FreeDOS. Since the source is freely available with a license as such (instead of some of the abandoned but freely available compilers) it can be specifically customized for FreeDOS Once completely built, all of the custom libraries that have been developed (or modified) for use with FreeDOS can be included with it, thereby making a customized toolchain. In the customized toolchain, all the non FreeDOS/DOS related stuff (Linux, Win32, Win64, and OS/2) would be removed. The OpenWatcom project MAY be interested in the custom libraries that we include specifically for FreeDOS development, and if so, I’d gladly send them over for inclusion, but I think the design goals of the OW project are different (at least for the C portion) which is making it compliant with the newer C/C++ standards and perhaps the Win32 and Win64 stuff. FreeDOS doesn’t have to be in the name, but I think having it there will signify while this is OpenWatcom, it will be a customized version tailored specifically for FreeDOS. -Tony > On Jan 14, 2018, at 6:21 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Jim Hall wrote: > >> Hi Tony >> >> I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure I like the optics of >> re-branding another project's work as "FreeDOS." That will seem like >> we're trying to grab someone else's stuff and claim it as our own - >> which we're not. > > QFT. > > Personal opinion: A "FreeDOS C" toolchain should really, IMO, if it should > even exist, be a scratch one, not a rebadging of another toolchain. > > -uso. > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Jim Hall wrote: Hi Tony I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure I like the optics of re-branding another project's work as "FreeDOS." That will seem like we're trying to grab someone else's stuff and claim it as our own - which we're not. QFT. Personal opinion: A "FreeDOS C" toolchain should really, IMO, if it should even exist, be a scratch one, not a rebadging of another toolchain. -uso. -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
Hi Tony I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure I like the optics of re-branding another project's work as "FreeDOS." That will seem like we're trying to grab someone else's stuff and claim it as our own - which we're not. We've rarely branded anything "FreeDOS" except for a few core things. And that's always been done by the person who wrote the program; not by us. I don't see the need to rename OpenWatcom C/C++ to FreeDOS C/C++, or OpenWatcom Assembler to FreeDOS Assembler. If there's something new you've added to OpenWatcom in the process of this work, I think it's better to contirbute those changes back to the OpenWatcom folks. Jim On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Antony Gordon wrote: > Hi all and Happy New Year, > > I sent a screen shot, not knowing that there was a size limit on the emails, > so I’m resending as a text only message. > > I have been working on a project for FreeDOS for well over year and I think > it’s about ready for prime time. I thought it would be cool if there was a > FreeDOS branded toolchain, so I worked on the OpenWatcom code and re-branded > it to FreeDOS. It still has all of the OpenWatcom copyright information, > here’s an example from the WASM assembler. > > [Output from WASM] > FreeDOS Assembler Version 2.0 beta Jan 13 2018 21:40:47 (32-bit) > Copyright (c) 2002-2017 The Open Watcom Contributors. All Rights Reserved. > Portions Copyright (c) 1992-2002 Sybase, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > Source code is available under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License. > See http://www.openwatcom.org/ for details. > > [Output from WCL] > FreeDOS C/C++ x86 16-bit Compile and Link Utility > Version 2.0 beta Jan 13 2018 22:29:44 (16-bit) > Copyright (c) 2002-2017 The Open Watcom Contributors. All Rights Reserved. > Portions Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Sybase, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > Source code is available under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License. > See http://www.openwatcom.org/ for details. > > The cool thing is that both the Watcom and FreeDOS toolchain can co-exist (as > long as you set your paths properly. I am going to install it in FreeDOS and > look for some code to compile in FreeDOS to see if it will work, especially > since this is 2.0 and not the 1.x branch. > > If anyone else would like to take it for a spin, let me know. > > -Tony > > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
Hello, Not sure I like renaming someone else’s tools and slapping the FreeDOS name on them. You really need to ask Jim Hall if he is fine with you using the FreeDOS name this way. Putting that issue aside for the moment, what is the advantage of this toolchain? You said you spent over a year working on it. But, other than changing the name, you don’t say what else you have done. What are the benefits over just using the original WASM & WCL? Personally, I don’t use either. I prefer NASM & TP/FPC. But, I’m sure others would like to know the benefits of your tool chain. -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Branded C/C++ Toolchain
Hi all and Happy New Year, I sent a screen shot, not knowing that there was a size limit on the emails, so I’m resending as a text only message. I have been working on a project for FreeDOS for well over year and I think it’s about ready for prime time. I thought it would be cool if there was a FreeDOS branded toolchain, so I worked on the OpenWatcom code and re-branded it to FreeDOS. It still has all of the OpenWatcom copyright information, here’s an example from the WASM assembler. [Output from WASM] FreeDOS Assembler Version 2.0 beta Jan 13 2018 21:40:47 (32-bit) Copyright (c) 2002-2017 The Open Watcom Contributors. All Rights Reserved. Portions Copyright (c) 1992-2002 Sybase, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Source code is available under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License. See http://www.openwatcom.org/ for details. [Output from WCL] FreeDOS C/C++ x86 16-bit Compile and Link Utility Version 2.0 beta Jan 13 2018 22:29:44 (16-bit) Copyright (c) 2002-2017 The Open Watcom Contributors. All Rights Reserved. Portions Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Sybase, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Source code is available under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License. See http://www.openwatcom.org/ for details. The cool thing is that both the Watcom and FreeDOS toolchain can co-exist (as long as you set your paths properly. I am going to install it in FreeDOS and look for some code to compile in FreeDOS to see if it will work, especially since this is 2.0 and not the 1.x branch. If anyone else would like to take it for a spin, let me know. -Tony -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
