On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:21, Blair Campbell wrote:
snip
Is OpenWatcom's DOS compiler 16-bit DPMI too?
No. Openwatcom is only capable of producing straight 16-bit apps or
32-bit DPMI apps.
I'm wondering, does anyone have a set of test apps that can test the
comparative performances of the
Hi Bernd,
Having all of my notes on a web page that everyone can see,
and using a tool which is very quick to edit those nodes so that I am
more likely to keep them up-to-date, will be of great benefit to
everyone when I suddenly disappear from the community :)
But the page doesn't
Blair Campbell schreef:
There was an outdated mkzftree.exe compiled, so I updated it to 1.06.
If anyone wants it, e-mail me.
BTW, if anyone doesn't know what mkzftree is, it is a tool to work
with zisofs trees.
and if anyone doesn't know what zisofs trees are?
Anyway, to my knowledge it's
David O'Shea schreef:
Fixed, I put a download link for the existing releases on
there and mentioned that they are pretty much identical to what is in
CVS. I also put an alpha version on there which is my code in its
current state which I think is not too bad..
not too bad at all, indeed.
IMHO, both are needed: DJGPP is perfect for compiling Unix tools.
Openwatcom is very good for new or simple programs. Porting from Borland
to OpenWatcom is ususaly not too dificult.
I have a lib of functions for OW that contain all the screen functions,
this is the worst part of converting.
Wesley Parish escreveu:
I'm wondering what the advantage of choosing any one particular C compiler
over the rest, might be. (Admittedly, one major advantage of DJGPP and
OpenWatcom is portability, which TurboC/C++ doesn't have; nobody's every
ported BCC to anything other than a *DOS that
Hi, adding to the wishlist...
IMHO, both are needed: DJGPP is perfect for compiling Unix tools.
Openwatcom is very good for new or simple programs.
DJGPP is good for tools which would suffer from the usual real
mode limitations (only little memory reachable directly / usual
pointer trickery
