Hello Pau, On 26/11/12 22:24, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > I'm curious, why move from bcc (ancient, unmaintained for ages) to > Watcom (which looked to me barely maintained and developed) instead of > something more modern like gcc, clang, etc? I guess Watcom has some > unique features that make it more fit for BIOS' compilation, but other > than having read Watcom was used in the past for embedded because it > generated small code, I cannot think of anything. > > (and please let's not make this a licenses, freedom, etc discussion: I'm > asking a purely technical question) To cut a long story short, Watcom was the free-est compiler available which could generate decent 16-bit x86 code. bcc was always rather painful to use due to it's very limited support of 16-bit Intel memory models, and eventually the pain got too much.
Regards, Michael -- ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Michael Thayer Werkstrasse 24 VirtualBox engineering 71384 Weinstadt, Germany mailto:[email protected] Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603 Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Astrid Kepper, Val Maher _______________________________________________ vbox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.virtualbox.org/mailman/listinfo/vbox-dev
