From: "Yuri Prokushev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:56:47 -0400 (EDT)
Priority: Normal
Subject: [Sibyl] libc
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
> In two words about libc. I considering most of you don't interesting
> in libc too much. But: having libc allows
>
> 1) port C/C++ programs more easely
> 2) port Kilyx programs more easely
no problem with these two points - see below.
> 3) make some things smaller
_Having_ libc doesn't make anything smaller. Creating a libc based
RTL _might_ result in a little bit smaller binaries in some cases
(but the price for that would be rather high, IMHO - incompatibility
of those binaries with older OS/2 versions, and most probably slower
execution as well).
> Disadvatages is
>
> 1) libc presented (officially) only in warp 4 or higher.
> 2) libc usage rejected by fpc team, so two versions of rtl.
Not really. Only libc usage _within_RTL_ was rejected by FPC team.
I'll be very glad to place a libc interface unit to, say, FPC
packages tree, and will consider it a very useful addition myself.
You absolutely don't need two RTL versions to be able to use libc
(you might only have to port the cmem unit distributed in packages
for Linux and Win32 targets, to OS/2, because some libc functions
need to use the C heap manager instead of the default one).
> If you like this - use libc, if not - don't. I don't see any problems
> with presense of two rtl versions (excluding more work, of couse ;)).
Still no need to have two RTL versions, IMHO... The decision on what
to spend your time is up to you, of course, I just told you my
opinion.
Tomas
-----------
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe sibyl
end
