On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 17:40:03 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > ??? What do you mean with this? Have you tried to compile e.g.
>> >basicpm.pas with -WG?
>> Grr... In docs no any info (this option documented as win32 target).
>
> Sorry, you're right. :-( But at least ppc386.exe without parameters
>shows you an equivalent switch -Dw with a proper comment.
Unfortunately not clear.
> Anyway, I
>wanted to have this common for OS/2 and Win32, that's why I added
>support for both -WG and {$APPTYPE GUI}directive (and added the
>missing {$APPTYPE FS}) under OS/2 as well. I'll probably remove -Dw
>from FPC 1.1 altogether. But it should be documented, that's clear.
Yep
>> >> ??? You using doscalls/pmwin like stuff but don't want use other
>> >> standard things? Strange....
>> > DosCalls / PMWin are _system_ libraries, not C compiler libraries!
>> I consider any library is system if distributed with OS.
> I (and the other FPC core team members) don't. DosCalls and PMWin
>form parts of the OS/2 API. Libc doesn't. Some libc is distributed on
>almost all platforms nowadays, but that doesn't change anything on
>the fact it still isn't a system library. You can have several libc
>versions running on top of one system (in the case of OS/2 there's
>EMX, VACPP, Watcom, Borland, ...).
Yes, I can. But such libcs not part of os. In our case libc is a part of standard
distribution and I don't see any logical problems (instead of system independed
implementation of routines) with usage of such libs
>> >> Wait, wait... I don't talk about emxlibc. I'm about native libc.
>> > ??? Which "native" one do you mean? Libc from VAC++?
>> LIBCM/LIBCS in os2/dll.
>........
> OK, I see. I wasn't aware of these, but that doesn't change much
>anyway - they are still nothing more then (modified) VACPP library
>files distributed together with OS/2. In addition to what I wrote
>above, these files aren't available on OS/2 Warp 3.0 at all as you
>noted yourself.
Well. Warp 3 not so widely used. And bacause I added condition instead of direct
implementation of libc calls.
>BTW, how much code would you really save if using
>these?
At least strings operations (val/str/trim etc), random/randomize, threads control,
file operations, regexps, lot of mathematic functions, date/time, stream io, memoru
operations and few other. This is at least strings/sysutils/math units. It is hard to
predict saved space. May be not so much.
>Do you think it's really worth the trouble with creating and maintaining two versions
>of RTL functions?
I think, no. And this is interesting for me. Also allows easely port C programs.
-----------
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe sibyl
end
